Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) have emerged as promising drug targets for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Futibatinib, a next-generation, covalently binding FGFR1-4 inhibitor, has been shown to have both antitumor activity in patients with FGFR-altered tumors and strong preclinical activity against acquired resistance mutations associated with ATP-competitive FGFR inhibitors. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, single-group, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic FGFR2 fusion-positive or FGFR2 rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and disease progression after one or more previous lines of systemic therapy (excluding FGFR inhibitors). The patients received oral futibatinib at a dose of 20 mg once daily in a continuous regimen. The primary end point was objective response (partial or complete response), as assessed by independent central review. Secondary end points included the response duration, progression-free and overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Between April 16, 2018, and November 29, 2019, a total of 103 patients were enrolled and received futibatinib. A total of 43 of 103 patients (42%; 95% confidence interval, 32 to 52) had a response, and the median duration of response was 9.7 months. Responses were consistent across patient subgroups, including patients with heavily pretreated disease, older adults, and patients who had co-occurring TP53 mutations. At a median follow-up of 17.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months and overall survival was 21.7 months. Common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (in 30% of the patients), an increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 7%), stomatitis (in 6%), and fatigue (in 6%). Treatment-related adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of futibatinib in 2% of the patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Quality of life was maintained throughout treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the use of futibatinib, a covalent FGFR inhibitor, led to measurable clinical benefit. (Funded by Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical; FOENIX-CCA2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02052778.).

Outcomes of Hepatic Artery-Based Therapies and Systemic Multiagent Chemotherapy in Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (UCRLM) includes locoregional and systemic therapy. A comprehensive analysis capturing long-term outcomes of these treatment options has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled outcomes of hepatic artery infusion with systemic chemotherapy (HAI-S), transarterial chemoembolization with systemic chemotherapy (TACE-S), transarterial radioembolization with systemic chemotherapy (TARE-S), doublet (FOLFOX, FOLFIRI), and triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI). METHODS: Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), rate of conversion to resection (CTR), and response rate (RR). RESULTS: A total of 32, 7, 9, and 14 publications were included in the HAI-S, TACE-S, and TARE-S chemotherapy arms. The 6/12/24/36-month OS estimates for HAI-S, TACE-S, TARE-S, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFOXIRI were 97%/80%/54%/35%, 100%/83%/40%/14%, 82%/61%/34%/21%, 96%/83%/53%/36%, and 96%/93%/72%/55%. Similarly, the 6/12/24/36-month PFS estimates were 74%/44%/19%/14%, 66%/20%/9%/3%, 57%/23%/10%/3%, 69%/30%/12%/7%, and 88%/55%/18%/11%. The corresponding CTR and RR rates were 31, 20%, unmeasurable (TARE-S), 35, 53; and 49, 45, 45, 50, 80%, respectively. The majority of chemotherapy studies included first-line therapy and liver-only metastases, whereas most HAI-S studies were pretreated. On subgroup analysis in first-line setting with liver-only metastases, the HAI-S arm had comparable outcomes to FOLFOXIRI and outperformed doublet chemotherapy regimens. Although triplet chemotherapy appeared to outperform other arms, high toxicity and inclusion of potentially resectable patients must be considered while interpreting results. CONCLUSIONS: HAI-S and multiagent chemotherapy are effective therapies for UCRLM. To make definitive conclusions, a randomized trial with comparable patient characteristics and line of therapy will be required. The upcoming EA2222 PUMP trial may help to address this question.

Surgical Resection Alone is Associated With Higher Long-Term Survival Than Multiagent Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With Localized Biliary Tract Cancers.

INTRODUCTION: We compared long-term survival of patients with localized biliary tract cancers (BTCs) treated with either surgical resection or multiagent chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with localized BTC [gallbladder adenocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma] were identified within the National Cancer Database (2010-2017). Piecewise-constant hazard modeling was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) at prespecified intervals: 0-30 d, 31-60 d, 61-90 d, and >90 d post-treatment. RESULTS: A total of 5988 patients with localized BTC were identified: 2697 (45.0%) received multiagent chemotherapy and 3291 (55.0%) underwent surgical resection. Patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who were treated with surgical resection had an associated decline in overall survival (OS) as compared to those treated with multiagent chemotherapy within 0-30 d of treatment initiation (gallbladder adenocarcinoma [adjusted HR = 3.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-8.80]; extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [adjusted HR = 4.88, 95% CI: 2.76-8.61]). However, there was an associated improvement in OS for patients treated with surgical resection after 90 d from treatment initiation (gallbladder adenocarcinoma [adjusted HR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.28-0.46]; extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [adjusted HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.24-0.32]). Among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, those who underwent surgical resection had an associated improvement in OS at 31-60 d (adjusted HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40-0.99) and a further associated increase in OS at 61-90 d (adjusted HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54) and after 90 d (HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.21-0.27) of treatment initiation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with localized BTC, surgical resection alone is associated with improved long-term survival outcomes compared to multiagent chemotherapy alone.

Plain language summary of the FOENIX-CCA2 study: futibatinib for people with advanced bile duct cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from a phase 2 study called FOENIXCCA2. The study evaluated treatment with futibatinib in people with a rare form of advanced bile duct cancer called intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (or iCCA), where the tumors have changes in the structure of a gene called FGFR2. These changes include FGFR2 gene fusions. Bile duct cancer often returns after surgery or cannot be treated by surgery because the tumor has spread, so it requires treatment with chemotherapy. People live for a median of 1 year after their first chemotherapy treatment and 6 months after their second treatment. This study included people whose cancer had grown/spread after one or more chemotherapy treatments. The aims of the study were to see if futibatinib could shrink the size of tumors and stop the cancer from growing/spreading and to see how long people lived when treated with futibatinib. Clinicians also looked at side effects from taking futibatinib and at how it affected people's quality of life. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Futibatinib treatment shrank tumors in over 80% of people who received treatment. Tumors shrank by at least 30% in 42% of people. Futibatinib stopped tumors from growing/spreading for a median of 9.7 months. People who took the medicine lived for a median of 21.7 months, and 72% of people were still alive after 1 year. Side effects from taking futibatinib were like those reported for similar medicines, and clinicians considered the side effects to be manageable by adjusting the dose of futibatinib or treating the side effects. Most people reported that their quality of life stayed the same or improved during the first 9 months of taking futibatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results support the use of futibatinib for treating people with advanced bile duct cancer. Based on the results of this study, futibatinib is now approved in the US, Europe, and Japan. Futibatinib is approved for treating adults with advanced bile duct cancer who have received previous treatment for their cancer, and whose tumors have a gene fusion or other change in the FGFR2 gene.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02052778 (FOENIX-CCA2).

WITHDRAWN: Neoadjuvant therapy leads to objective response in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2024.04.011. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Neoadjuvant therapy leads to objective response in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common hepatic malignancy and has a poor prognosis. Surgical resection is the standard of care for patients with resectable disease, representing 30-40% of cases. Increasingly, neoadjuvant systemic therapy is being utilized in patients due to high-risk anatomic or biologic considerations. However, data on the clinical effect of this approach are limited. We performed a cohort study to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with oncologically high-risk iCCA. METHODS: iCCA patients (n = 181) between the years 2014-2020 were reviewed for clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and outcome-related data. Tumor regression grade was scored per CAP criteria for gastrointestinal carcinomas. RESULTS: 47 iCCA patients received neoadjuvant therapy and 72 did not. Neoadjuvant treatment led to objective response and tumor regression by CAP score. After adjustment for age, clinical stage, and tumor size, the outcomes of patients who had neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery were not significantly different from those patients who had surgery first. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, neoadjuvant therapy in iCCA facilitated surgical care. The progression-free and overall survival for surgical patients with and without neoadjuvant therapy were not significantly different suggesting this approach needs further exploration as an effective treatment paradigm.

Why the Treatment Sequence Matters: Interplay Between Chemotherapy Cycles Received, Cumulative Dose Intensity, and Survival in Resected Early-stage Pancreas Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To define the optimal threshold of perioperative chemotherapy completion and relative dose intensity (RDI) for patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Many patients who undergo pancreatectomy for PDAC fail to initiate or complete recommended perioperative chemotherapy. The association between the amount of perioperative chemotherapy received and overall survival (OS) is not well-defined. METHODS: Single-institution analysis of 225 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for stage I/II PDAC (2010-2021). Associations between OS, chemotherapy cycles completed, and RDI were analyzed. RESULTS: Regardless of treatment sequence, completion of ≥67% of recommended cycles was associated with improved OS compared with no chemotherapy [median OS: 34.5 vs 18.1 months; hazard ratio (HR): 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.74] and <67% of cycles (median OS: 17.9 months; HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.24-0.64). A near-linear relationship existed between cycles completed and the RDI received (ß = 0.82). A median RDI of 56% corresponded to the completion of 67% of cycles. Receipt of ≥56% RDI was associated with improved OS compared with no chemotherapy (median OS: 35.5 vs 18.1 months; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23-0.84) and <56% RDI (median OS: 27.2 months; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.20-0.96). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with increased odds of receiving ≥67% of recommended cycles (odds ratio: 2.94; 95% CI: 1.45-6.26) and ≥56% RDI (odds ratio: 4.47; 95% CI: 1.72-12.50). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PDAC who received ≥67% of recommended chemotherapy cycles or ≥56% cumulative RDI had improved OS. Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with increased odds of receiving ≥67% of cycles and ≥56% cumulative RDI and should be considered in all patients with resectable PDAC.

Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Female underrepresentation in oncology clinical trials can result in outcome disparities. We evaluated female participant representation in US oncology trials by intervention type, cancer site, and funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the publicly available Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. Initially, 270,172 studies were identified. Following the exclusion of trials using Medical Subject Heading terms, manual review, those with incomplete status, non-US location, sex-specific organ cancers, or lacking participant sex data, 1650 trials consisting of 240,776 participants remained. The primary outcome was participation to prevalence ratio (PPR): percent females among trial participants divided by percent females in the disease population per US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. PPRs of 0.8-1.2 reflect proportional female representation. RESULTS: Females represented 46.9% of participants (95% CI, 45.4-48.4); mean PPR for all trials was 0.912. Females were underrepresented in surgical (PPR 0.74) and other invasive (PPR 0.69) oncology trials. Among cancer sites, females were underrepresented in bladder (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = .02), head/neck (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.68, P < .01), stomach (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.70, P < .01), and esophageal (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P < .01) trials. Hematologic (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P < .01) and pancreatic (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, P < .01) trials had higher odds of proportional female representation. Industry-funded trials had greater odds of proportional female representation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P = .01) than US government and academic-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders should look to hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded cancer trials as exemplars of female participant representation and consider female representation when interpreting trial results.

Phase II Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Irinotecan in Patients with Advanced, Refractory Biliary Tract Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with irinotecan in a phase II trial setting for refractory, advanced unresectable biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). METHODS: A total of 28 patients (27 were evaluable) with advanced BTCs who progressed on at least one prior systemic therapy were enrolled and were treated with trifluridine/tipiracil 25 mg/m2 (days 1-5 of 14-day cycle) and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (day 1 of the 14-day cycle). The primary endpoint for the study was 16-week progression-free survival (PFS16) rate. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were pre-specified secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 27 patients, PFS16 rate was 37% (10/27; 95% CI: 19%-58%), thereby meeting the criteria for success for the primary endpoint. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-7.4) and 9.1 months (95% CI: 8.0-14.3), respectively. In the patients evaluable for tumor response (n = 20), the ORR and DCR were 10% and 50%, respectively. Twenty patients (74.1%) had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event (AE), and 4 patients (14.8%) had grade 4 AEs. A total of 37% (n = 10/27) and 51.9% (n = 14/27) experienced dose reductions in trifluridine/tipiracil and irinotecan, respectively. Delay in therapy was noted in 56% of the patients while 1 patient discontinued the therapy, primarily due to hematologic AEs. CONCLUSION: The combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus irinotecan is a potential treatment option for patients with advanced, refractory BTCs with good functional status and no targetable mutations. A larger randomized trial is needed to confirm these results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072445).

Cytoreduction with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemoperfusion for Pancreatic Cancer with Low-Volume Peritoneal Metastasis: Results from a Prospective Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Resection of oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has historically been ineffective, however modern systemic chemotherapy has improved survival. Thus, re-evaluating safety and outcomes of surgical resection in selected patients with limited peritoneal metastasis (PM) warrants consideration. METHODS: From 2018 to 2021, patients with PDAC and positive cytology or limited PM without extraperitoneal metastasis and who had an objective response to ≥ 6 months of systemic chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients underwent laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with cisplatin/mitomycin C. If amenable to a complete cytoreduction, patients went on to cytoreduction and HIPEC. RESULTS: Overall, 18 patients were enrolled and received a median of 14 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-17) cycles of chemotherapy; 16 (89%) patients received chemoradiation. Laparoscopic HIPEC was completed in 17 patients, with a median length of stay of 1 day, and no grade III complications or hematological toxicities were observed. All 18 patients subsequently underwent a complete cytoreduction (CC-0) along with definitive treatment of the primary tumor, with formal resection (7/18), irreversible electroporation (IRE; 10/18), or intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT; 1/18). Median PCI was 2 (IQR 0-4), median LOS was 7 days (IQR 6-8), and 7 (39%) patients were readmitted. Eight (44%) patients experienced grade 3 or higher complications, including one 30-day mortality. At a median follow-up of 16 months, the median progression-free survival was 20 months and the median overall survival was 26 months. CONCLUSION: Cytoreduction and HIPEC for selected patients with low-volume PM from PDAC is safe and feasible with favorable short-term outcomes. A phase II trial (NCT04858009) is now enrolling to further assess this multimodality approach in select patients.

NEO-GAP: A Single-Arm, Phase II Feasibility Trial of Neoadjuvant Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, and Nab-Paclitaxel for Resectable, High-Risk Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Most patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) develop recurrence after resection. Adjuvant capecitabine remains the standard of care for resected IHCC. A combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel (GAP) was associated with a 45% response rate and 20% conversion rate among patients with unresectable biliary tract cancers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of delivering GAP in the neoadjuvant setting for resectable, high-risk IHCC. METHODS: A multi-institutional, single-arm, phase II trial was conducted for patients with resectable, high-risk IHCC, defined as tumor size > 5 cm, multiple tumors, presence of radiographic major vascular invasion, or lymph node involvement. Patients received preoperative GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m2, cisplatin 25 mg/m2, and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) for a total of 4 cycles prior to an attempt at curative-intent surgical resection. The primary endpoint was completion of both preoperative chemotherapy and surgical resection. Secondary endpoints were adverse events, radiologic response, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty evaluable patients were enrolled. Median age was 60.5 years. Median follow-up for all patients was 17 months. Ten patients (33%) experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, the most common being neutropenia and diarrhea; 50% required ≥ 1 dose reduction. The disease control rate was 90% (progressive disease: 10%, partial response: 23%, stable disease: 67%). There was zero treatment-related mortality. Twenty-two patients (73%, 90% CI 57-86; p = 0.008) completed all chemotherapy and surgery. Two patients (9%) who successfully underwent resection had minor postoperative complications. Median length of hospital stay was 4 days. Median RFS was 7.1 months. Median OS for the entire cohort was 24 months and was not reached in patients who underwent surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel is feasible and safe prior to resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and does not adversely impact perioperative outcomes.

Disparities in guideline-compliant care for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at minority-versus non-minority-serving hospitals.

BACKGROUND: We examined disparities in guideline-compliant care at minority-serving hospitals (MSH) versus non-MSH among patients with localized or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: Patients with PDAC were identified within the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Guideline-compliant care was defined as surgery + chemotherapy ± radiation therapy for localized and chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Facilities in the top decile of minority patients treated were considered MSH. RESULTS: A total of 190,950 patients were identified and most (59.6%) had metastatic disease. Overall, 6.4% of patients with localized and 8.2% of patients with metastatic disease were treated at MSH. Patients treated at MSH were less likely to receive guideline-compliant care (localized: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91; metastatic: OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88). Minority patients were less likely to receive guideline-compliant care at non-MSH (localized: OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67-0.75; metastatic: OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89) or MSH (localized: OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.98; metastatic: OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82-0.99). Patients treated at non-MSH or MSH who received guideline-compliant care were more likely to have higher OS regardless of stage or race. CONCLUSIONS: MSH patients were less likely to receive guideline-compliant care and minority patients were less likely to receive guideline-compliant care regardless of MSH status. Guideline-compliant care was associated with improved OS.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Switch in Borderline Resectable/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an integral part of preoperative treatment for patients with borderline resectable/locally advanced (BR/LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The identification of a chemotherapeutic regimen that is both effective and tolerable is critical for NAC to be of oncologic benefit. After initial first-line (FL) NAC, some patients have lack of response or therapeutic toxicities precluding further treatment with the same regimen; optimal decision making regarding this patient population is unclear. Chemotherapy switch (CS) may allow for a larger proportion of patients to undergo curative-intent resection after NAC. METHODS: We reviewed our surgical database for patients undergoing combinatorial NAC for BR/LA PDAC. Variant histologic exocrine carcinomas, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm-associated PDAC, and patients without research consent were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 468 patients with BR/LA PDAC receiving FL chemotherapy were reviewed, of whom 70% (329/468) continued with FL chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. The remaining 30% (139/468) underwent CS, with 72% (100/139) of CS patients going on to curative-intent surgical resection. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the resected FL and CS cohorts (30.0 vs. 19.1 months, p = 0.13, and 41.4 vs. 36.4 months, p = 0.94, respectively) and OS was significantly worse in those undergoing CS without subsequent resection (19 months, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and pathologic treatment responses were predictors of RFS and OS. CONCLUSION: CS in patients undergoing NAC for BR/LA pancreatic cancer does not incur oncologic detriment. The incorporation of CS into NAC treatment sequencing may allow a greater proportion of patients to proceed to curative-intent surgery.

A pilot study of Pan-FGFR inhibitor ponatinib in patients with FGFR-altered advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Background Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare, chemo resistant and are associated with a poor prognosis. Preclinical and early clinical work had demonstrated interesting anti-tumor activity from targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway. We hypothesized that ponatinib, a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against FGFR, would be active in BTC patients with FGFR alterations. Methods This was a multi-center, single institution pilot study of ponatinib in patients with advanced, refractory BTC with FGFR alterations. The primary end point was overall response rate, with secondary points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) assessment. Results Twelve patients were enrolled prior to early termination of the trial. Partial responses were observed in 1 from 12 patients. Median PFS was 2.4 months and median OS was 15.7 months. All observed toxicities were manageable and reversible. Toxicities were mild, with lymphopenia (75%), rash (63%) and fatigue (50%) being the most frequent. No significant detriment in global QoL was observed. Conclusions Ponatinib as a single agent in FGFR altered BTC is tolerable with limited clinical activity. This is the first report of prospective assessment of FGFR inhibition in BTC using ponatinib, and the first study to report its effect on HRQoL. Further development of ponatinib will involve correlative studies to better refine patient selection, focus on combinations with other molecular targeted agents, conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, and studies to better understand mechanisms of treatment resistance.

FGFR2-IIIb Expression by Immunohistochemistry Has High Specificity in Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Genomic Alterations.

BACKGROUND: FGFR2 genomic alterations are observed in 10-20% of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Although FGFR2 fusions are an important actionable target, FGFR2 protein expression has not been thoroughly characterized. AIMS: To evaluate FGFR2 protein expression in cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 genomic alterations. METHODS: FGFR2 protein expression was evaluated in 99 CCA cases with two different antibodies. FGFR2 genomic alterations were confirmed via next-generating sequencing (NGS) or FISH. Primary objective was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of FGFR2 immunohistochemistry staining for detecting FGFR2 genomic alterations. Secondary objectives included overall FGFR2 immunohistochemistry staining in CCA patients, and evaluation of whether FGFR2 expression correlates with clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-tumor recurrence (TTR). RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry staining with two antibodies against FGFR2, FPR2-D, and clone 98706 showed high accuracy (78.7% and 91.9%) and specificity (82.9% and 97.7%), and moderate sensitivity (53.9% and 57.1%), respectively, when compared with the standard methods for detecting FGFR2 genomic alterations. In a median follow-up of 72 months, there were no statistically significant differences in OS, PFS, and TTR, for patients with positive or negative FGFR2 staining. CONCLUSION: FGFR2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry has high specificity and therefore could be used to imply the presence of FGFR2 genomic alterations in the context of a positive test. In the case of a negative test, NGS or FISH would be necessary to ascertain cases with FGFR2 genomic alterations.

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.

Phase IB study of sorafenib and evofosfamide in patients with advanced hepatocellular and renal cell carcinomas (NCCTG N1135, Alliance).

Background Sorafenib (Sor) remains a first-line option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or refractory renal cell carcinomas (RCC). PLC/PRF/5 HCC model showed upregulation of hypoxia with enhanced efficacy when Sor is combined with hypoxia-activated prodrug evofosfamide (Evo). Methods This phase IB 3 + 3 design investigated 3 Evo dose levels (240, 340, 480 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, 22), combined with Sor 200 mg orally twice daily (po bid) on days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle. Primary objectives included determining maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of Sor + Evo. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled (median age 62.5 years; 17 male /1 female; 12 HCC/6 RCC) across three dose levels (DL0: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 240 mg/m2 [n = 6], DL1:Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 480 mg/m2 [n = 5], DL1a: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 340 mg/m2 [n = 7]). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported with Evo 480 mg/m2 (grade 3 mucositis, grade 4 hepatic failure). Grade 3 rash DLT was observed in one patient at Evo 240 mg/m2. No DLTs were observed at Evo 340 mg/m2. MTD and RP2D were established as Sor 200 mg/Evo 340 mg/m2 and Sor 200/Evo 240 mg/m2, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and nausea/vomiting. Two partial responses were observed, one each at DL0 and DL1a.; disease control rate was 55%. Conclusions RP2D was established as sorafenib 200 mg bid + Evo 240 mg/m2. While preliminary anti-tumor activity was observed, future development must account for advances in immunotherapy in HCC/RCC.

Second-line therapies in advanced biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancers constitute approximately 3% of gastrointestinal malignancies with poor prognosis. Surgical therapy is the main form of treatment in localised disease; however, for patients with advanced stage or unresectable disease, locoregional and systemic chemotherapeutics are primary treatment options. Although the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin is a standard regimen of choice, there are no consensus guidelines that help in choosing an appropriate second-line therapy. Substantial progress has been made in the past decade to understand the tumorigenesis and genetic landscape of each biliary tract cancer subtype, which facilitates precision medicine for this cancer. Common genes implicated in biliary tract cancer tumorigenesis include IDH1, IDH2, FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, EPHA2, BAP1, ARID1B, ELF3, PBRM1, PRKACA, PRKACB, HER2, and BRAF. With the advancements in molecular pathogenesis of biliary tract cancer, especially in an era of personalised medicine, many questions are yet to be answered in advanced stages of the cancer: what subset of patients might benefit from second-line drugs, how to choose an optimal second-line regimen, and their effects on quality of life. This Review seeks to summarise available literature and discuss the potential second-line systemic therapy options for advanced biliary tract cancer on the basis of advancements of our knowledge on molecular pathogenesis and tumorigenesis.

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily. The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BACKGROUND: The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC. METHODS: This was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment-naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated-ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated-ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. CONCLUSION: Trametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.

Role of Surgery and Perioperative Therapy in Older Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether results from recent trials of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are generalizable to older patients, who are underrepresented. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of surgery and of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in older patients with resectable PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients aged ≥65 years with upfront resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained pancreatic cancer registry from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into ages 65-75 and 75+ years. Overall survival (OS) was assessed in treatment comparisons: (A) surgery (n = 636) versus nonsurgical (n = 178), (B) neoadjuvant therapy (n = 139) versus upfront surgery (n = 497), and (C) adjuvant therapy (n = 379) versus surgery alone (n = 118). We compared neoadjuvant (n = 139) versus adjuvant therapy (n = 379) in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS: Nine hundred and three patients had a median age of 73.7 (range, 65-96.6) years. Median OS was 26.6 versus 11.9 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj ], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.52; p < .001) in Comparison A groups, 30.7 versus 25.8 months (HRadj , 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; p = .03) in Comparison B groups, and 26.9 versus 17.4 months (HRadj , 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88; p = .008) in Comparison C groups, respectively. OS benefit in these treatment comparisons was present in age group 75+ with HRadj 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.36; p < .001) in Comparison A and HRadj 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27-1; p = .049) in Comparison B, but not in Comparison C with HRadj 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43-1.08; p = .1). Statistically comparable median OS of patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy stratified by age groups was observed. CONCLUSION: Older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Older patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in general are underrepresented in large clinical trials and less well studied in terms of the role of surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. This study collected data on older patients with resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained single-institutional pancreatic cancer registry of a tertiary referral center from 2007 to 2016. It was found that, with multidisciplinary evaluation, older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. These results are of substantial importance to practitioners who treat older patients, who are traditionally underrepresented in most clinical trials.