Mutational analysis of microsatellite-stable gastrointestinal cancer with high tumour mutational burden: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Genomic signatures contributing to high tumour mutational burden (TMB-H) independent from mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status are not well studied. We aimed to characterise molecular features of microsatellite stable (MSS) TMB-H gastrointestinal tumours. METHODS: Molecular alterations of 48 606 gastrointestinal tumours from Caris Life Sciences (CARIS) identified with next-generation sequencing were compared among MSS-TMB-H, dMMR/MSI-H, and MSS-TMB-low (L) tumours, using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Antitumour immune response within the tumour environment was predicted by analysing the infiltration of immune cells and immune signatures using The Cancer Genome Atlas database. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to evaluate the impact of gene alterations on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in MSS gastrointestinal cancers from the CARIS database, a Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center cohort, and a Peking University Cancer Hospital cohort. FINDINGS: MSS-TMB-H was observed in 1600 (3·29%) of 48 606 tumours, dMMR/MSI-H in 2272 (4·67%), and MSS-TMB-L in 44 734 (92·03%). Gene mutations in SMAD2, MTOR, NFE2L2, RB1, KEAP1, TERT, and RASA1 might impair antitumour immune response despite TMB-H, while mutations in 16 other genes (CDC73, CTNNA1, ERBB4, EZH2, JAK2, MAP2K1, MAP2K4, PIK3R1, POLE, PPP2R1A, PPP2R2A, PTPN11, RAF1, RUNX1, STAG2, and XPO1) were related to TMB-H with enhanced antitumour immune response independent of dMMR/MSI-H, constructing a predictive model (modified TMB [mTMB]) for immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy. Patients with any mutation in the mTMB gene signature, in comparison with patients with mTMB wildtype tumours, showed a superior survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors in MSS gastrointestinal cancers in the CARIS cohort (n=95, median overall survival 18·77 months [95% CI 17·30-20·23] vs 7·03 months [5·73-8·34]; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·31-0·99], p=0·044). In addition, copy number amplification in chromosome 11q13 (eg, CCND1, FGF genes) was more prevalent in MSS-TMB-H tumours than in the dMMR/MSI-H or MSS-TMB-L subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Not all mutations related to TMB-H can enhance antitumour immune response. More composite biomarkers should be investigated (eg, mTMB signature) to tailor treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our data also provide novel insights for the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and drugs targeting cyclin D1 or FGFs. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, Gloria Borges WunderGlo Foundation, Dhont Family Foundation, Gene Gregg Pancreas Research Fund, San Pedro Peninsula Cancer Guild, Daniel Butler Research Fund, Victoria and Philip Wilson Research Fund, Fong Research Project, Ming Hsieh Research Fund, Shanghai Sailing Program, China National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and a higher response rate than standard therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201) in patients with HER2-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (DESTINY-CRC01): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: HER2 amplification has been identified in 2-3% of patients with colorectal cancer, although there are currently no approved HER2-targeted therapies for colorectal cancer. We aimed to study the antitumour activity and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan (an antibody-drug conjugate of humanised anti-HER2 antibody with topoisomerase I inhibitor payloads) in patients with HER2-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: DESTINY-CRC01 is an open-label, phase 2 study that recruited patients from 25 clinics and hospitals in Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had centrally confirmed HER2-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer that had progressed on two or more previous regimens (HER2-targeted therapies other than trastuzumab deruxtecan permitted), were aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0 or 1, and had RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumours. Patients were enrolled into one of three cohorts by HER2 expression level: cohort A (HER2-positive, immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+ or IHC2+ and in-situ hybridisation [ISH]-positive), cohort B (IHC2+ and ISH-negative), or cohort C (IHC1+). Patients received 6·4 mg/kg trastuzumab deruxtecan intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate in cohort A by independent central review which was assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety analysis set. Both the full analysis set and the safety analysis set included all patients who received one or more doses of trastuzumab deruxtecan. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03384940. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2018, and July 3, 2019, 78 patients were enrolled in the study (53 in cohort A, seven in cohort B, and 18 in cohort C), all of whom received at least one dose of study drug. For the 53 (68%) patients with HER2-positive tumours (cohort A), a confirmed objective response was reported in 24 (45·3%, 95% CI 31·6-59·6) patients after a median follow-up of 27·1 weeks (IQR 19·3-40·1). Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 10% of all participants were decreased neutrophil count (17 [22%] of 78) and anaemia (11 [14%]). Five patients (6%) had adjudicated interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (two grade 2; one grade 3; two grade 5, the only treatment-related deaths). INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed promising and durable activity in HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard treatment, with a safety profile consistent with that reported in previous trastuzumab deruxtecan trials. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis are important risks requiring careful monitoring and prompt intervention. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo.

Factors Predicting Response, Perioperative Outcomes, and Survival Following Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Borderline/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictive factors associated with operative morbidity, mortality, and survival outcomes in patients with borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). BACKGROUND: The optimal preoperative treatment sequencing for BR/LA PDA is unknown. TNT, or systemic chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (CRT), addresses both occult metastases and positive margin risks and thus is a potentially optimal strategy; however, factors predictive of perioperative and survival outcomes are currently undefined. METHODS: We reviewed our experience in BR/LA patients undergoing resection from 2010 to 2017 following TNT assessing operative morbidity, mortality, and survival in order to define outcome predictors and response endpoints. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four patients underwent resection after TNT, including 123 (63%) BR and 71 (37%) LA PDAC. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine along with nab-paclitaxel were used in 165 (85%) and 65 (34%) patients, with 36 (19%) requiring chemotherapeutic switch before long-course CRT and subsequent resection. Radiologic anatomical downstaging was uncommon (28%). En bloc venous and/or arterial resection was required in 125 (65%) patients with 94% of patients achieving R0 margins. The 90-day major morbidity and mortality was 36% and 6.7%, respectively. Excluding operative mortalities, the median, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) [overall survival (OS)] rates were 23.5 (58.8) months, 65 (96)%, 48 (78)%, and 32 (62)%, respectively. Radiologic downstaging, vascular resection, and chemotherapy regimen/switch were not associated with survival. Only 3 factors independently associated with prolonged survival, including extended duration (≥6 cycles) chemotherapy, optimal post-chemotherapy CA19-9 response, and major pathologic response. Patients achieving all 3 factors had superior survival outcomes with a survival detriment for each failing factor. In a subset of patients with interval metabolic (PET) imaging after initial chemotherapy, complete metabolic response highly correlated with major pathologic response. CONCLUSION: Our TNT experience in resected BR/LA PDAC revealed high negative margin rates despite low radiologic downstaging. Extended duration chemotherapy with associated biochemical and pathologic responses highly predicted postoperative survival. Potential modifications of initial chemotherapy treatment include extending cycle duration to normalize CA19-9 or achieve complete metabolic response, or consideration of chemotherapeutic switch in order to achieve these factors may improve survival before moving forward with CRT and subsequent resection.

Use of Molecular Assays and Circulating Tumor DNA in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group.

The use of genomic testing is rapidly emerging as an important clinical tool both for cancer diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions in a wide range of malignancies, including gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in technologies such as polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing methods have made it possible to noninvasively screen for CRC through, for example, the use of blood- or stool-based testing, with high specificity. Tests are also available that can provide prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic factors such as tumor size, grade, and nodal status, which can enable clinicians to more accurately risk stratify patients for recurrence. Lastly, in the setting of resected CRC, tests are now available that can detect circulating tumor DNA as a means for noninvasive minimal/molecular residual disease monitoring, thereby potentially guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or escalating or de-escalating therapy. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group (GICTEG) recently convened a virtual meeting to discuss current issues related to genomic testing in GI cancer, with the goal of providing guidance on the use of these tests for the practicing community oncologist, for whom GI cancer may be only one of many tumor types encountered. This article provides a summary of the discussion and highlights the key opinions of the GICTEG on this topic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group seeks to provide practical guidance and opinion on the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal cancer (CRC), for the practicing community oncologist in situations for which guidelines from established bodies, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, may be less clear. In the present report, clinical guidance on the use of molecular assays for a range of clinical indications in CRC is presented, including the use of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal/molecular residual disease in patients with successfully resected early-stage CRC.

Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

Duration of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS: We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS: After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

Analysis of the Survival Impact of Postoperative Chemotherapy After Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy is a standard-of-care treatment for patients with gastric cancer. However, the impact of the postoperative chemotherapy (postCTX) component on overall survival (OS) is not well defined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2006-2014 was queried for patients who received preoperative chemotherapy (preCTX) and resection for gastric cancer. Analysis was performed to identify factors influencing receipt of postCTX. The impact of postCTX on OS was evaluated in propensity-matched groups. RESULTS: Among 3449 patients who received preCTX and resection for gastric cancer, 1091 (31.6%) received postCTX. Independent predictors of receiving postCTX were diagnosis after 2010 (odds ratio [OR] 1.985), distal tumor location (OR 1.348), and 15 or more lymph nodes examined (OR 1.214). Predictors of not receiving postCTX were older age (OR 0.985), comorbidity score higher than 1 (OR 0.592), and black race (OR 0.791). After propensity-matching (1091 per group), the median OS was 56.8 months for those who did receive postCTX versus 52.5 months for those who did not (p = 0.131). Subset analysis according to tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, number of lymph nodes evaluated, T and N class, and AJCC stage identified an improvement in OS for the patients with N1 disease who received postCTX compared with those who did not (79.6 vs 41.3 months; p = 0.025). However, no other subgroup had a significant survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Additional postCTX was administered to a minority of patients who received preCTX and gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and its influence on OS appeared to be limited. Future trials should aim to define patients who will benefit from postCTX.

Effect of Celecoxib vs Placebo Added to Standard Adjuvant Therapy on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: The CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Aspirin and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal polyps and cancer in observational and randomized studies. The effect of celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, as treatment for nonmetastatic colon cancer is unknown. Objective: To determine if the addition of celecoxib to adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/Southwest Oncology Group 80702 was a 2 × 2 factorial design, phase 3 trial conducted at 654 community and academic centers throughout the United States and Canada. A total of 2526 patients with stage III colon cancer were enrolled between June 2010 and November 2015 and were followed up through August 10, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant FOLFOX (every 2 weeks) for 3 vs 6 months with or without 3 years of celecoxib (400 mg orally daily; n = 1263) vs placebo (n = 1261). This report focuses on the results of the celecoxib randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival, measured from the time of randomization until documented recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points included overall survival, adverse events, and cardiovascular-specific events. Results: Of the 2526 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.0 years [11 years]; 1134 women [44.9%]), 2524 were included in the primary analysis. Adherence with protocol treatment, defined as receiving celecoxib or placebo for more than 2.75 years or continuing treatment until recurrence, death, or unacceptable adverse events, was 70.8% for patients treated with celecoxib and 69.9% for patients treated with placebo. A total of 337 patients randomized to celecoxib and 363 to placebo experienced disease recurrence or died, and with 6 years' median follow-up, the 3-year disease-free survival was 76.3% for celecoxib-treated patients vs 73.4% for placebo-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .12). The effect of celecoxib treatment on disease-free survival did not vary significantly according to assigned duration of adjuvant chemotherapy (P for interaction = .61). Five-year overall survival was 84.3% for celecoxib vs 81.6% for placebo (HR for death, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .13). Hypertension (any grade) occurred while treated with FOLFOX in 14.6% of patients in the celecoxib group vs 10.9% of patients in the placebo group, and a grade 2 or higher increase in creatinine levels occurred after completion of FOLFOX in 1.7% vs 0.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with stage III colon cancer, the addition of celecoxib for 3 years, compared with placebo, to standard adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045.

Effect of duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer (IDEA collaboration): final results from a prospective, pooled analysis of six randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, pooled analysis of six randomised phase 3 trials was done to investigate disease-free survival regarding non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer; non-inferiority was not shown. Here, we report the final overall survival results. METHODS: In this prospective, pooled analysis of six randomised phase 3 trials, we included patients with stage III colon cancer aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 recruited between June 20, 2007, and Dec 31, 2015, across 12 countries in the CALGB/SWOG 80702, IDEA France, SCOT, ACHIEVE, TOSCA, and HORG trials, who started any treatment (modified intention-to-treat). Patients in all trials were randomly assigned to 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) every 2 weeks or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in different doses and methods every 3 weeks, at the treating physician's discretion. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (time to relapse, secondary colorectal primary tumour, or death due to all causes), and overall survival (time to death due to all causes) was the prespecified secondary endpoint. The non-inferiority margin for overall survival was set as a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·11. Pre-planned subgroup analyses included regimen and risk group. Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRadj) p value was less than 0·025. FINDINGS: With median follow-up of 72·3 months (IQR 72·2-72·5), 2584 deaths among 12 835 patients were observed. 5064 (39·5%) patients received CAPOX and 7771 (60·5%) received FOLFOX. 5-year overall survival was 82·4% (95% CI 81·4-83·3) with 3 months of therapy and 82·8% (81·8-83·8) with 6 months of therapy (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·95-1·11]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·058). For patients treated with CAPOX, 5-year overall survival was 82·1% (80·5-83·6) versus 81·2% (79·2-82·9; HR 0·96 [0·85-1·08]); non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·033), and for patients treated with FOLFOX 5-year overall survival was 82·6% (81·3-83·8) and 83·8% (82·6-85·0; HR 1·07 [0·97-1·18]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·34). Updated disease-free survival results confirmed previous findings (HR 1·08 [95% CI 1·02-1·15]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·25). Data on adverse events were not further recorded. INTERPRETATION: Non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer was not confirmed in terms of overall survival, but the absolute 0·4% difference in 5-year overall survival should be placed in clinical context. Overall survival results support the use of 3 months of adjuvant CAPOX for most patients with stage III colon cancer. This conclusion is strengthened by the substantial reduction of toxicities, inconveniencies, and cost associated with a shorter treatment duration. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Relationship between MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 gene-specific alterations and tumor mutational burden in 1057 microsatellite instability-high solid tumors.

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are predictive biomarkers for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Still, the relationship between the underlying cause(s) of MSI and TMB in tumors remains poorly defined. We investigated associations of TMB to mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression patterns by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MMR mutations in a diverse sample of tumors. Hypothesized differences were identified by the protein/gene affected/mutated and the tumor histology/primary site. Overall, 1057 MSI-H tumors were identified from the 32 932 tested. MSI was examined by NGS using 7000+ target microsatellite loci. TMB was calculated using only nonsynonymous missense mutations sequenced with a 592-gene panel; a subset of MSI-H tumors also had MMR IHC performed. Analyses examined TMB by MMR protein heterodimer impacted (loss of MLH1/PMS2 vs. MSH2/MSH6 expression) and gene-specific mutations. The sample was 54.6% female; mean age was 63.5 years. Among IHC tested tumors, loss of co-expression of MLH1/PMS2 was more common (n = 544/705, 77.2%) than loss of MSH2/MSH6 (n = 81/705, 11.5%; P < .0001), and was associated with lower mean TMB (MLH1/PMS2: 25.03 mut/Mb vs MSH2/MSH6 46.83 mut/Mb; P < .0001). TMB also varied by tumor histology: colorectal cancers demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 loss had higher TMBs (33.14 mut/Mb) than endometrial cancers (20.60 mut/Mb) and other tumors (25.59 mut/Mb; P < .0001). MMR gene mutations were detected in 42.0% of tumors; among these, MSH6 mutations were most common (25.7%). MSH6 mutation patterns showed variability by tumor histology and TMB. TMB varies by underlying cause(s) of MSI and tumor histology; this heterogeneity may contribute to differences in response to ICI.

Molecular Analyses of Left- and Right-Sided Tumors in Adolescents and Young Adults with Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly left-sided tumors (LT), in adolescents and young adults (AYA) is rising. Epigenetic events appear to play an important role in tumorigenesis and cancer progression, especially in younger patients. We compared molecular features of LT to right-sided tumors (RT) in AYA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 246 LT and 56 RT were identified in a cohort of 612 AYA with primary CRC. Tumors were examined by next-generation sequencing (NGS), protein expression, and gene amplification. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability (MSI) were determined based on NGS data. RESULTS: RT showed higher mutation rates compared with LT in several genes including BRAF (10.3% vs. 2.8%), KRAS (64.1% vs. 45.5%), PIK3CA (27% vs. 11.2%), and RNF43 (24.2% vs. 2.9%). Notably, additional mutations in distinct genes involved in histone modification and chromatin remodeling, as well as genes associated with DNA repair and cancer-predisposing syndromes, were characteristic of RT; most frequently KMT2D (27.8% vs. 3.4%), ARID1A (53.3% vs. 21.4%), MSH6 (11.1% vs. 2.3%), MLH1 (10.5% vs. 2.3%), MSH2 (10.5% vs. 1.2%), POLE (5.9% vs. 0.6%), PTEN (10.8% vs. 2.3%), and BRCA1 (5.4% vs. 0.6%). MSI was seen in 20.8% of RT versus 4.8% of LT. RT had a higher frequency of TMB-high regardless of MSI status. CONCLUSION: Molecular profiling of AYA CRC revealed different molecular characteristics in RT versus LT. Epigenetic mechanisms and alteration in DNA repair genes warrant further investigation and may be a promising treatment target for CRC in AYA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) in adolescents and young adults (AYA) comprises a distinct entity with different clinicopathologic features and prognosis compared with older patients. Molecular profiling of right- and left-sided tumors in AYA is needed to gain novel insight into CRC biology and to tailor targeted treatment in this age group. This study found that right- and left-sided CRC show distinct molecular features in AYA, overall and in subgroups based on microsatellite instability status. Alterations in DNA double-strand break repair and homologous recombination repair, as well as epigenetic mechanisms, appear to play a critical role. The present molecular profiling data may support the development of personalized treatment strategies in the AYA population.

A Practical Approach to the Management of Cancer Patients During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An International Collaborative Group.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID-19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by rapid human-to-human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID-19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID-19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high-risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 virology and epidemiology.

Phase 1 trial of Vismodegib and Erlotinib combination in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Interplay between the Hedgehog (HH) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways modulating the outcome of their signaling activity have been reported in various cancers including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Therefore, simultaneous targeting of these pathways may be clinically beneficial. This Phase I study combined HH and EGFR inhibition in metastatic PDAC patients. METHODS: Combined effects of HH and EGFR inhibition using Vismodegib and Erlotinib with or without gemcitabine in metastatic solid tumors were assessed by CT. Another cohort of patients with metastatic PDAC was evaluated by FDG-PET and tumor biopsies-derived biomarkers. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated with the maximum tolerated dose cohort experiencing no grade 4 toxicities though 25% experienced grade 3 adverse effects. Recommended phase II dose of Vismodegib and Erlotinib were each 150 mg daily. No tumor responses were observed although 16 patients achieved stable disease for 2-7 cycles. Paired biopsy analysis before and after first cycle of therapy in PDAC patients showed reduced GLI1 mRNA, phospho-GLI1 and associated HH target genes in all cases. However, only half of the cases showed reduced levels of desmoplasia or changes in fibroblast markers. Most patients had decreased phospho-EGFR levels. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib and Erlotinib combination was well-tolerated although overall outcome in patients with metastatic PDAC was not significantly impacted by combination treatment. Biomarker analysis suggests direct targets inhibition without significantly affecting the stromal compartment. These findings conflict with pre-clinical mouse models, and thus warrant further investigation into how upstream inhibition of these pathways is circumvented in PDAC.

Comprehensive tumor profiling reveals unique molecular differences between peritoneal metastases and primary colorectal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peritoneal metastases (PM) from primary colorectal cancer (pCRC) are associated with poor outcomes; however, molecular differences are not well defined. METHODS: We compared unpaired tumor profiles of patients with pCRC and PM from Caris Life Sciences. Testing included next-generation sequencing of 592 genes, microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). Mutations were test-defined as pathogenic (PATH). RESULTS: Six hundred seventeen pCRC and 348 PM patients had similar gender (55% male) and age (median 59). PATHs were similar between PM and pCRC in KRAS, BRAF, SMAD2, SMAD4, and PTEN. pCRC PATHs were increased in APC (76% vs 48%, P < .01), ARID1A (29% vs 12%, P < .05), TP53 (72% vs 53%, P < .01), PIK3CA (22% vs 15%, P < .05), and FBXW7 (13% vs 7%, P < .01) compared with PM. Mucinous PM had more PATHs in GNAS (19% vs 8%, P = .032) while nonmucinous PM had more PATHs in BRAF (13% vs 8%, P = .027). Right-sided PM had decreased PATHs in APC (39% vs 68%, P < .0001), ARID1A (7% vs 38%, P < .004), and TP53 (48% vs 65%, P = .033) while there were no difference for left-sided PM. Nine percent of pCRC and 6% of PM were MSI-high (P = NS). There was no difference in TMB-high, TMB-intermediate, or TMB-low between PM and pCRC. CONCLUSIONS: PM have similar rates of KRAS mutation with increased PATHs in GNAS (mucinous) and BRAF (nonmucinous) compared to pCRC. No differences in MSI or TMB were identified between PM and pCRC tumors. These findings inform future study into the molecular profile of PM.

How to incorporate a chemo-free interval into the management of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Management of metastatic colorectal cancer reflects a continuum of care. The primary treatment goals are to prolong survival while maintaining the best quality of life. The recommended standard-of-care treatments in the first-line setting consist of combination chemotherapy regimens, given with or without biologic agents. Most patients will receive different lines of therapy for the rest of their life. In the context of lifelong therapy, incorporating chemo-free intervals is one strategy to help achieve these treatment goals. A principle of management is to ensure that all potentially active agents are available to patients. Third-line options for patients with an inadequate response to first-line and second-line therapy include regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. These treatments should be initiated before the patient's performance status deteriorates. Patient characteristics should guide selection. The management plan now incorporates new lessons learned during the current global COVID-19 pandemic. One of the primary guiding principles underlying these recommendations is to avoid unnecessary clinic and hospital exposure. Telemedicine permits the remote management of patients who are receiving oral therapies. Many of these strategies will likely remain in place after the pandemic ends.

Optimizing the treatment sequence from second-line to third-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

In clinical trials of metastatic colorectal cancer, progressive disease after second-line therapy is often defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. In the clinic, however, disease progression can be identified through a composite of factors, including new lesions, carcinoembryonic antigen level, and symptoms such as pain and fatigue. It is optimal to switch to third-line treatment before the patient's performance status deteriorates. In the third-line setting, regorafenib and trifluridine tipiracil are approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are refractory to standard chemotherapy. Both of these treatments are associated with prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival in heavily pretreated patients. Data suggest that a chemotherapy break may be beneficial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Some data suggest that treatments beyond the third-line setting might also improve outcome.

Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Regorafenib for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Who Progressed After Standard Therapy: Results of the Large, Single-Arm, Open-Label Phase IIIb CONSIGN Study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment-refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib-related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib-related TEAEs occurred in <1%. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related TEAEs were hypertension (15%), hand-foot skin reaction (14%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (5%), and hypophosphatemia (5%). Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 laboratory toxicities included alanine aminotransferase (6%), aspartate aminotransferase (7%), and bilirubin (13%). Ongoing monitoring identified one nonfatal case of regorafenib-related severe drug-induced liver injury per DILI Working Group criteria. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.7 months (2.6-2.7). CONCLUSION: In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT (N = 760) and CONCUR (N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events.

Influence of genetic variation in the vitamin D pathway on plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels and survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The relationships of genetic variation in the vitamin D pathway with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D] levels and survival remain largely unknown for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Among 535 patients participating in a randomized trial of chemotherapy for mCRC, we prospectively measured baseline plasma 25(OH)D and examined 124 tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within seven genes in the vitamin D pathway, including five SNPs associated with circulating 25(OH)D levels in previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We evaluated whether these SNPs were associated with plasma 25(OH)D levels and patient outcome (overall survival, time to progression, and tumor response), using linear, logistic, and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: We observed a significant association between 25(OH)D levels and an additive genetic risk score determined by the five GWAS-identified SNPs (p = 0.0009). We did not observe any direct association between 25(OH)D-associated SNPs, individually or as a genetic risk score, and patient outcome. However, we found a significant interaction between 25(OH)D levels and rs12785878 genotype in DHCR7 on overall survival (pinteraction = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Germline genetic variation in the vitamin D pathway informs baseline 25(OH)D levels among patients with mCRC. The association between 25(OH)D levels and overall survival may vary by DHCR7 genotype. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003594 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00003594 ).