Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Significance of lymph node involvement in local recurrence of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on lymphatic spread concomitant to local recurrence (LR) of colorectal cancer (CRC). The objectives of this study were to determine variables associated with lymphatic spread, to analyze the distribution of LN+, and understand the underlying mechanisms. METHODS: A total of 76 patients underwent resection of LR of CRC between January 2007 and December 2018 at Institut cancérologique de l'Ouest and were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-five (32.9%) patients had lymph node (LN) involvement with LR. Lymphatics from the mesocolon-rectum and aorto-iliac compartments were involved in 21%, 20.3% and 18.1%, 20.3% for pelvic and retroperitoneal LRs, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the only predictive factor for LN invasion (LN+) was a primary positive LN status (odds ratio, 5.3; P = .007). Despite a trend toward a worse median overall survival in the LN+ group, the difference was not significant in comparison with the LN- group (46 vs. 57 months; P = 0.31) or with the LN- plus LN not assessed groups (46 months vs not reached; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: LN invasion with LR from CRC is a frequent occurrence without significant impact on survival. The only predictive factor is a primary positive nodal status.

Phase I dose-escalation trial of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in combination with gemcitabine or docetaxel in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors.

Background Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, has shown synergistic antitumor activity and manageable tolerability in combination with chemotherapy. This phase I study assessed oral afatinib plus intravenous gemcitabine or docetaxel in patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors. Methods Patients received afatinib (30, 40, or 50 mg) plus gemcitabine (1000 or 1250 mg/m2) or docetaxel (60 or 75 mg/m2). Dose escalation proceeded via a 3 + 3 design until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was reached. Adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity were also assessed. Results Dose-limiting toxicities during Cycle 1 were reported in 6/39 patients receiving afatinib/gemcitabine (most commonly diarrhea, thrombocytopenia and vomiting) and 16/54 patients receiving afatinib/docetaxel (most commonly febrile neutropenia and stomatitis). The MTDs were established as afatinib 40 mg/gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and afatinib 30 mg/docetaxel 60 mg/m2. The most common drug-related AEs were diarrhea, asthenia and rash with afatinib/gemcitabine, and diarrhea, asthenia and stomatitis with afatinib/docetaxel. No relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed for either combination. Both combinations demonstrated clinical activity and durable disease control at the MTDs. Compared with the MTD, higher response rates were achieved with afatinib 30 mg/docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (28% vs 6%); however, this regimen was associated with problematic febrile neutropenia, an expected AE with docetaxel, that is often managed with growth factor support. Conclusions Afatinib/gemcitabine and afatinib/docetaxel demonstrated manageable safety profiles, with evidence of clinical efficacy at the MTDs. For afatinib/docetaxel, a dose level of afatinib 30 mg/docetaxel 75 mg/m2 produced higher response rates. Trial registration: NCT01251653 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ).

First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Clinico-Biological Predictors of Disease Control.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify predictors of tumor control (TC) in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A development cohort of 68 patients from a prospective multicenter trial (NCT01248299) was used to identify predictors of TC at first radiological tumor assessment and to generate a predictive score for TC. That score was applied in an independent retrospective single-center validation cohort of 60 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified three predictors of TC: body mass index ≥18.5 (OR 4.5, 95% CI 0.91-22.5), absence of bone metastasis (OR 4.6, 95% CI 0.91-23.2) and albumin ≥35 g/l (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.1). Based on the presence or absence of these three independent prognosticators, we built a predictive model using a score from 0 to 3. In the development cohort, the TC rates were 14.3 and 78.0% and in the validation cohort 12.5 and 44.2%, for scores of 0-1 and 2-3, respectively. With negative predictive values of 85 and 88% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, we were able to identify patients with a very low probability of TC. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a score that can be easily determined at the bedside to predict TC in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Prognostic Impact of TP53 Mutations in Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of TP53 mutations in advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC) patients treated with chemotherapy and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from patients with nsNSCLC treated in the first line from January 2018 to May 2021. The patient was separated into 2 groups according to their TP53 mutation status (wt vs. mut). Survival was estimated through the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 220 patients included, 126 were in the mutTP53 group, and 94 were in the wtTP53wt group. Median OS (mOS) was not significantly different between the mutTP53 and wtTP53 groups [17.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 11.3-21.5) vs. 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.4-14.2), (P = .051)]. In subgroup analyses, the mutTP53 group treated with ICI had a significantly improved mOS compared to the wtTP53 group [(24.7 months (95% CI, 20.8-not reach) vs. 12.0 months (95% CI, 4.7-not reach), (P = .017)] and mPFS [(9.6 months (95% CI, 5.8-not reach) vs. 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.3-13.8) (P = .048)]. There was no difference in terms of mOS and mPFS between the mutTP53 and the wtTP53 group treated by chemotherapy alone or combined with ICI. CONCLUSION: TP53 mutation had no survival impact in the overall population, but is associated with better outcomes with ICI alone. These results suggest that patients with TP53 mutations could be treated with ICI alone, and wild-type patients could benefit from the addition of chemotherapy.

PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases from gastrointestinal tract (PIPOX01): An open label, non-comparative phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite modern systemic chemotherapy, survival remains poor for patients with advanced isolated peritoneal metastases from the gastrointestinal tract. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) with oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase 1/2, open label, non-comparative, dose escalation and expansion trial of PIPAC with oxaliplatin in patients with a peritoneal cancer index (PCI) of more than 5, 13 and 15 for respectively a gastric, small bowel and colorectal primary cancer, and who had received at least three months of systemic chemotherapy. PIPAC cycle lengths were 4-6 weeks with systemic chemotherapy allowed 15 days after each PIPAC. PCI and oxaliplatin tumor concentration were assessed every PIPAC cycle. The main endpoints were tolerability, tumor response, and survival. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 34 patients were enrolled in three centers, in this phase 1/2 study, of whom 25 were evaluable at the recommended dose determined in the phase I trial (90 mg/m2 plus systemic 5-FU). Before inclusion, patients received a median of 2 [1-4] chemotherapy lines and had a median PCI of 22.5 [7-29]. At this dose, the safety profile showed acceptable tolerability. Eight patients (32 %) had grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events. Minor (grade 1/2) adverse events were mainly abdominal pain (n = 19, 76 %) and nausea (n = 16, 64 %). Median PFS was 6.1 months and median OS was 13 months. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced and refractory peritoneal metastasis, PFS of 6.1 months is encouraging. A prospective randomized phase II study is required.

Pemigatinib for patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: A joint analysis of the French PEMI-BIL and Italian PEMI-REAL cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting.

Preliminary tolerance analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients after resection of stage III colon cancer from the PRODIGE 34-FFCD randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Colon adenocarcinoma mainly occurs in older patients. Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved disease-free survival after stage III colon cancer resection, but this improvement was not demonstrated in older patients. METHODS: The purpose of ADAGE-PRODIGE 34, randomized open phase III trial is to compare in patients over 70 years oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with fluoropyrimidine alone in fit patients (Group 1) and fluoropyrimidine with observation in frail patients (Group 2) after resection of stage III colon adenocarcinoma. We report a preliminary tolerance analysis on 50% of the first patients enrolled. RESULTS: The analysis was conducted on 491 patients (378 in Group 1 and 113 in Group 2). Patients in Group 2 were older and showed more frailty criteria than those in Group 1. Cumulative grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequent in patients treated with oxaliplatin in Group 1 or with fluoropyrimidine in Group 2 than in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine in Group 1. At least one course was deferred in more than half of the patients in all groups. Early treatment cessation was more frequent in Group 2. CONCLUSION: No safety concerns were raised for the continuation of accrual. The frailty criteria distribution suggests that the investigator's evaluation for group allocation was accurate.

Survival after cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients: Does a history of resected liver metastases worsen the prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, resection of two (liver and peritoneum) concomitant colorectal cancer metastatic sites is no longer contraindicated. However, the oncologic outcomes of resecting peritoneal metastases (PM) occurring more than six months after resection of liver metastases (LM) are unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare patients with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without a history of previous liver resection (LR). METHODS: Analysis from a prospective database of 74 patients with metachronous PM treated with CRS between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: All patients had PM metachronous to primary, 64 patients underwent CRS alone (CRSa) and 10 CRS more than six months after LR (LR-CRS). There was no statistical difference between the groups for clinical or therapeutic characteristics. There were more signet ring cell/mucinous adenocarcinomas in the CRSa group than in the LR-CRS group (19% vs. 0%, p = 0.049). The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 4 and 6 (p = 0.749) in the LR-CRS and CRSa groups, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not statistically different between the two groups with 43.6 and 13 months for the CRSa group and 31.1 months and 9.4 months for LR-CRS. Advanced age was an independent negative prognostic factor for OS and high PCI was limit significant. No prognostic factor for DFS was found. CONCLUSIONS: LR before CRS has no major prognostic impact. Resection of iterative liver and peritoneum metastases can achieve long-term survival.

Safety and Efficacy of Dostarlimab in Patients With Recurrent/Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the Phase I GARNET Trial.

BACKGROUND: Dostarlimab is an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibody being evaluated in recurrent/advanced solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the ongoing Phase I, multi-center, open-label, 2-part (dose escalation and cohort expansion) GARNET study (NCT02715284). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here, we report an interim analysis of patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC who progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received dostarlimab (500 mg IV every 3 weeks [Q3W] for Cycles 1-4, then 1000 mg Q6W) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for > 2 years. The primary endpoints were immune-related objective response rate (irORR) per investigator-assessed irRECIST and safety. RESULTS: As of 8, July 2019, 67 patients with recurrent/advanced NSCLC were enrolled and treated with dostarlimab; the majority had programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1% (35.8% of patients) or PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% (29.9% of patients); 7.5% had PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%, and 26.9% had unknown PD-L1 TPS status. Median follow-up was 13.8 months (range: 0.0-22.6). irORR was 26.9%, including 2 complete and 16 partial responses. The median duration of response of 11.6 months (range: 2.8-19.4). Responses were observed in 2 of 24 (16.7%) patients with PD-L1 TPS < 1%, 4 of 20 (20.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS 1%-49% and 2 of 5 (40.0%) patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50%. Fatigue (4.5%) was the most common Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TRAE). Immune-related TRAEs (any grade) were observed in 28.4% of patients. CONCLUSION: Dostarlimab demonstrated promising antitumor activity in advanced/recurrent NSCLC that progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy, including across all PD-L1 subgroups, and has an acceptable safety profile.

PD-1 Blockade in Solid Tumors with Defects in Polymerase Epsilon.

Missense mutations in the polymerase epsilon (POLE) gene have been reported to generate proofreading defects resulting in an ultramutated genome and to sensitize tumors to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. However, many POLE-mutated tumors do not respond to such treatment. To better understand the link between POLE mutation variants and response to immunotherapy, we prospectively assessed the efficacy of nivolumab in a multicenter clinical trial in patients bearing advanced mismatch repair-proficient POLE-mutated solid tumors. We found that only tumors harboring selective POLE pathogenic mutations in the DNA binding or catalytic site of the exonuclease domain presented high mutational burden with a specific single-base substitution signature, high T-cell infiltrates, and a high response rate to anti-PD-1 monotherapy. This study illustrates how specific DNA repair defects sensitize to immunotherapy. POLE proofreading deficiency represents a novel agnostic biomarker for response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapy. SIGNIFICANCE: POLE proofreading deficiency leads to high tumor mutational burden with high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and predicts anti-PD-1 efficacy in mismatch repair-proficient tumors. Conversely, tumors harboring POLE mutations not affecting proofreading derived no benefit from PD-1 blockade. POLE proofreading deficiency is a new tissue-agnostic biomarker for cancer immunotherapy. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1397.

Transient Vision Loss - A Rare Oxaliplatin-Induced Ophthalmologic Side Effect: A Report of Two Cases.

Oxaliplatin, a platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent, is responsible for induced peripheral sensory neuropathy. Only a few cases of ophthalmologic toxicity have been reported. We report here two cases of sudden transient vision loss after oxaliplatin administration, in one case intraperitoneally. These symptoms likely reflect optic neuritis that could be included in the spectrum of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.

A Real-World Study of Patients with Advanced Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, few data regarding the characteristics of EGFR exon 20 insertion (20ins) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are available. OBJECTIVE: Using a large real-world cohort, we assessed the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with non-squamous (nsq) NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20ins. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Epidemio-Strategy and Medical Economics advanced and metastatic lung cancer data platform including advanced/metastatic nsqNSCLC patients from January 2015 was analyzed (cut-off date: June 30, 2020). Characteristics, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and other mutations, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes were assessed for patients harboring EGFR exon 20ins, common EGFR mutations, other EGFR mutations, and wild-type EGFR. Survival parameters were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method in these four groups. RESULTS: Out of 9435 nsqNSCLC patients tested for EGFR, 1549 (16.4%) had a mutation, including 61 with EGFR exon 20ins (3.9% of all mutated EGFR). These 61 patients had a mean age of 63.6 years, were mostly female (68.9%) and non-smokers (55.7%), with de novo stage IV disease (73.8%) and performance status 0-1 (76.9%). Almost all patients (95.1%) with exon 20ins received systemic therapy (median, three lines). First-line systemic treatments consisted mainly of combination chemotherapy (70.7%), single-agent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (10.3%), and single-agent immunotherapy (5.2%). After a median follow-up of 25.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-32.4) months, the median real-world overall survival was 24.3 (19.1-32.6) months in patients with exon 20ins compared to 35.4 (95% CI 32.6-37.5) in patients with common EGFR mutation (n = 1049) (p = 0.049) and 19.6 (95% CI 18.6-20.5) in patients with wild-type EGFR (n = 7866) (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This large national study in nsqNSCLC patients confirms that EGFR exon 20ins is a rare condition (0.6%). The prognosis associated with exon 20ins appears to be in line with that of wild-type EGFR, but worse than common EGFR mutations, highlighting the need for advancements for this rare population.

Phase I study of bromohydrin pyrophosphate (BrHPP, IPH 1101), a Vgamma9Vdelta2 T lymphocyte agonist in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Vgamma9Vdelta2 (gammadelta) T lymphocytes, a critical peripheral blood lymphocyte subset, are directly cytotoxic against many solid and hematologic tumor types. Vgamma9Vdelta2 T lymphocytes can be selectively expanded in vivo with BrHPP (IPH1101) and IL-2. The present phase I trial was conducted with the aim of determining the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of IPH1101 combined with a low dose of IL-2 in patients with solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A 1-h intravenous infusion of IPH11 was administered alone at cycle 1, combined with a low dose of SC IL-2 (1 MIU/M(2) d1 to d7) in the subsequent cycles (day 1 every 3 weeks). The dose of IPH1101 was escalated from 200 to 1,800 mg/m(2). RESULTS: As much as 28 patients with solid tumors underwent a total of 109 treatment cycles. Pharmacodynamics data demonstrate that gammadelta T lymphocyte amplification in humans requires the co-administration of IL-2 and is dependent on IPH 1101 dose. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two patients at a dose of 1,800 mg/m(2): one grade 3 fever (1 patient) and one grade 3 hypotension (1 patient) suggesting cytokine release syndrome immediately following the first infusion. At lower doses the treatment was well tolerated; the most frequent adverse events were mild fever, chills and abdominal pain, without exacerbation in the IL-2 combined cycles. CONCLUSION: IPH1101 in combination with SC low-dose IL-2 is safe, well tolerated and induces a potent gammadelta T lymphocyte expansion in patients. Its clinical activity will be evaluated in phase II clinical trials.

A phase I dose-escalation study of oxaliplatin delivered via a laparoscopic approach using pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for advanced peritoneal metastases of gastrointestinal tract cancers.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety profile and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin delivered by pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal tract cancers. METHODS: PIPAC was applied every 4-6 weeks, for 5 cycles, in a phase I dose-escalation study using a 3 + 3 design. The first dose level was 90 mg/m2 with planned increases of 50 mg/m2 per level. Platinum concentration was measured in plasma, tissues and intraperitoneal fluid samples. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03294252). RESULTS: Ten patients with 33 PIPAC sessions were included. No dose limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at 90 mg/m2 and two at 140 mg/m2. The MTD was therefore set at 90 mg/m2. Overall treatment included a median number of three PIPAC sessions (range: 1-5) and secondary complete cytoreductive surgery for two patients. Overall safety showed 67 grade I-II and 11 grade III-IV toxicities, usually haematologic, digestive (nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain), and fatigue. Oxaliplatin concentrations were three- to four-fold higher in tissue in contact with aerosol than in muscle without contact. At 140 mg/m2, the plasma oxaliplatin concentration was high with Cmax and area under the curve (AUC)0-48h of 1035 µg/l and 9028 µg h/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of oxaliplatin during PIPAC is 90 mg/m2. PK data demonstrate a high tumour concentration and a significant systemic absorption.

Intra-abdominal recurrence from colorectal carcinoma: Differences and similarities between local and peritoneal recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal recurrences from colo-rectal cancer can be isolated (PR) or associated with local recurrences (LR). The purpose of this study was to analyze patterns and outcomes of LR and PR. METHODS: Analyze from a prospective database of 108 patients treated with CCS plus HIPEC at two cancer centers between 2008 and 2015. RESULTS: The population was divided into an LPR group (presence of LR with or without PR, n = 56) and a PR group (isolated PR, n = 52). The patients characteristics (age, sex, Charlson score, PCI) or perioperative treatments were comparable between the groups. The median number of resected organs for tumor involvement (respectively, 2 vs 1; p < 0.001), the percentage of patients with metastatic lymph nodes (LN+) from the resected specimen (respectively, 25% vs 7%; p = 0.016) and the mortality rate (respectively, 9% vs 0%; p = 0.023) were significantly higher in the LPR group. After a median follow-up of 32 (1-108) months, median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (respectively, 46 vs 42 months; p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: LR is associated with a higher incidence of organ invasion, LN involvement (25%) and postoperative mortality. Optimal surgical resection of LR with systematic lymphadenectomy of invaded organs seems mandatory.

Prognostic Impact of Pretherapeutic FDG-PET in Localized Anal Cancer.

Due to the heterogeneity of tumour mass segmentation methods and lack of consensus, our study evaluated the prognostic value of pretherapeutic positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) metabolic parameters using different segmentation methods in patients with localized anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Eighty-one patients with FDG-PET before radiochemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Semiquantitative data were measured with three fixed thresholds (35%, 41% and 50% of Maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax)) and four segmentation methods based on iterative approaches (Black, Adaptive, Nestle and Fitting). Metabolic volumes of primary anal tumour (P-MTV) and total tumour load (T-MTV: P-MTV+ lymph node MTV) were calculated. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Seven multivariate models were created to compare FDG-PET tumour volumes prognostic impact. For all segmentation thresholds, PET metabolic volume parameters were independent prognostic factor and T-MTV variable was consistently better associated with EFS than P-MTV. Patient's sex was an independent variable and significantly correlated with EFS. With fixed threshold segmentation methods, 35% of SUVmax threshold seemed better correlated with EFS and the best cut-off for discrimination between a low and high risk of event occurrence was 40 cm3. Determination of T-MTV by FDG-PET using fixed threshold segmentation is useful for predicting EFS for primary anal SCC. If these data are confirmed in larger studies, FDG-PET could contribute to individualized patient therapies.

Randomized Phase II Trial Evaluating Treatment with EGFR-TKI Associated with Antiestrogen in Women with Nonsquamous Advanced-Stage NSCLC: IFCT-1003 LADIE Trial.

PURPOSE: The incidence of lung cancer has dramatically increased in women. Preclinical data have suggested that combining EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with an antiestrogen may overcome resistance to EGFR-TKI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The IFCT-1003 LADIE trial was a 2 × 2 arms parallel open-label randomized phase II trial. EGFR-TKI-naïve postmenopausal women with advanced lung cancer were treated with gefitinib (G) versus gefitinib + fulvestrant (G+F) in the EGFR-mutated group (EGFR+) or with erlotinib (E) versus erlotinib + fulvestrant (E+F) in the EGFR wild-type group (EGFR-WT). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 and 9 months for EGFR-WT and EGFR+ patients. RESULTS: Overall, 204 patients (gefitinib 104 and G+F 100) and 175 patients (erlotinib 87 and E+F 88) were enrolled in the EGFR+ and EGFR-WT cohorts. In the EGFR+ cohort, the primary endpoint was reached, with 58% of the G+F group patients being nonprogressive at 9 months. Adding fulvestrant to gefitinib was not associated with improved PFS (9.9 vs 9.4 months) or overall survival (OS; 22.1 vs 28.6 months). In the EGFR-WT cohort, the primary endpoint was also achieved (33.7% of the patients were nonprogressive at 3 months). Adding fulvestrant to erlotinib was not associated with improved outcome (PFS 1.8 vs 2.0 and OS 10.3 vs 7.3 months). No PFS difference was observed regarding estrogen receptor alpha expression. The tolerance was as expected with no treatment-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Adding fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI is feasible, but not associated with prolonged PFS regardless of EGFR status. The lack of benefits while combining fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI does not support its future development in an unselected population.