Fluoropyrimidine type, patient age, tumour sidedness and mutation status as determinants of benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with EGFR monoclonal antibodies: individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised trials from the ARCAD database.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit. METHODS: Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis. RESULTS: 5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

Different prognostic values of KRAS exon 2 submutations and BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite stable (MSS) and unstable (MSI) stage III colon cancer: an ACCENT/IDEA pooled analysis of seven trials.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III colon cancer (CC) remains controversial and has never been clearly analyzed in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors due to sample size limitations. Data are also lacking for KRAS submutations and prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined clinicopathological variables and prognosis in patients with surgically resected stage III CC who participated in seven clinical trials from the ACCENT/IDEA databases. Associations between KRAS exon 2 and BRAFV600E mutations and time to recurrence (TTR), overall survival (OS), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed using a Cox model. We also analyzed the prognostic value of KRAS exon 2 submutations. RESULTS: Among 8460 patients, 11.4% had MSI-H status. In the MSI-H group, BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and double-wild-type statuses were detected in 40.6%, 18.1%, and 41.3%, respectively, whereas and in the microsatellite stable (MSS) group, these were detected in 7.7%, 38.6%, and 53.8%, respectively. In the MSS group, 5-year TTR rates of 61.8%, 66.3%, and 72.9% were observed among patients with BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and those who were DWT, respectively [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.58 and 1.31, both P < 0.001]. In the MSI-H group, 5-year TTR rates did not differ significantly among the mutated subgroups. Similar results were found for OS. However, survival after relapse was significantly shorter in the KRAS exon 2- and BRAFV600E-mutated patients in both MSS (adjusted HR = 2.06 and 1.15; both P < 0.05) and MSI-H (adjusted HR = 1.99 and 1.81; both P < 0.05) groups. In the MSS group, KRAS exon 2 mutations were associated with TTR, but only p.G12C, p.G12D, and p.G13D were associated with poor outcomes after disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing for both KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III patients should be considered as they can better define individual patient prognosis, and may also enable patient selection for (neo)adjuvant trials dedicated to specific molecular subtypes with poor prognosis.

First-line trifluridine/tipiracil + bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: final survival analysis in the TASCO1 study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options are limited in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) in this setting was evaluated in the TASCO1 trial; here, we present the final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: TASCO1 was an open-label, non-comparative phase II trial. Patients (n = 153) were randomised 1:1 to TT-B (trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, and bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B; capecitabine, 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle). Final OS was analysed when all patients had either died or withdrawn from the study. Adjusted multivariate regression was used to investigate the effects of pre-specified variables on OS. RESULTS: At 1 September 2020, median OS was 22.3 months (95% CI: 18.0-23.7) with TT-B and 17.7 months (95% CI: 12.6-19.8) with C-B (adjusted HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55-1.10). No variables negatively affected OS with TT-B. Safety results were consistent with prior findings. CONCLUSIONS: TT-B is a promising therapeutic regimen in mCRC patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02743221 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: 4-year follow-up from CheckMate 142.

BACKGROUND: In the phase II multicohort CheckMate 142 study, nivolumab plus low-dose (1 mg/kg) ipilimumab provided robust and durable clinical benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) at 13.4- and 25.4-month median follow-up (Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:773-779. Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM, et al. Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:635). Here, we present results from the 4-year follow-up of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus low-dose (1 mg/kg) ipilimumab every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; as per RECIST version 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were treated; 76% had ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Median follow-up was 50.9 months (range 46.9-62.7 months). Median duration of therapy was 24.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-33.2 months]. Investigator-assessed ORR increased from 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) at 13.4 months to 65% (95% CI 55% to 73%) at 50.9 months with a disease control rate of 81% (95% CI 72% to 87%). The complete response rate increased from 3% at 13.4 months to 13% at 50.9 months. Partial responses were observed in 52% of patients; 21% had stable disease, and 12% had progressive disease. Median time to response was 2.8 months (range 1.1-37.1 months), and median duration of response was not reached (range 1.4+ to 58.0+ months). At data cut-off, 37 (48%) patients had ongoing responses. Median progression-free survival was not reached [95% CI 38.4 months-not estimable (NE)], and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI NE). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in 32% of patients; 13% of patients had any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm long-term benefit of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab for previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. The safety profile was manageable with no new safety signals.

Ibrutinib in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: phase III RESOLVE study.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits antitumor activity through tumor microenvironment modulation. The safety and efficacy of first-line ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine treatment in patients with PDAC were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RESOLVE (NCT02436668) was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients (histologically-confirmed PDAC; stage IV diagnosis ≥6 weeks of randomization; Karnofsky performance score ≥70) were randomized to once-daily oral ibrutinib (560 mg) or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 424 patients were randomized (ibrutinib arm, n = 211; placebo arm, n = 213). Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. After a median follow-up of 25 months, there was no significant difference in OS between ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median of 9.7 versus 10.8 months; P = 0.3225). PFS was shorter for ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine compared with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median 5.3 versus 6.0 months; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 29% and 42%, respectively (P = 0.0058). Patients in the ibrutinib arm had less time on treatment and received lower cumulative doses for all agents compared with the placebo arm. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events for ibrutinib versus placebo arms included neutropenia (24% versus 35%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (17% versus 8%), and anemia (16% versus 17%). Primary reasons for any treatment discontinuation were disease progression and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine did not improve OS or PFS for patients with PDAC. Safety was consistent with known profiles for these agents.

Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in a randomized, open-label, phase III trial in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival versus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 tumors. The association of tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status and clinical outcomes was determined, including the relationship with CPS and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In patients with whole exome sequencing (WES) data [420/592 (71%); pembrolizumab, 218; paclitaxel, 202], the association of tTMB with objective response rate (ORR; logistic regression), progression-free survival (PFS; Cox proportional hazards regression), and overall survival (OS; Cox proportional hazards regression) were measured using one-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided [paclitaxel] P values. tTMB was also evaluated using FoundationOne®CDx [205/592 (35%)]. Prespecified equivalent cut-offs of 175 mut/exome for WES and 10 mut/Mb for FoundationOne®CDx were used. RESULTS: WES-tTMB was significantly associated with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated (all P < 0.001) but not paclitaxel-treated patients (all P > 0.6) in univariate analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for WES-tTMB and response was 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.81] for pembrolizumab and 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.63) for paclitaxel in univariate analysis. There was low correlation between WES-tTMB and CPS in both treatment groups (r ≤ 0.16). WES-tTMB remained significantly associated with all clinical endpoints with pembrolizumab after adjusting for CPS and with PFS and OS after excluding known MSI-H tumors (n = 26). FoundationOne®CDx-tTMB demonstrated a positive association with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated patients (all P ≤ 0.003) but not PFS or OS in paclitaxel-treated patients (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-061 is the first to demonstrate a strong association between tTMB and efficacy with pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel in patients with gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma in a randomized setting. Data further suggest tTMB is a significant and independent predictor beyond PD-L1 status.

Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive therapy: the randomized TASCO1 study.

BACKGROUND: We designed an open-label, noncomparative phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) and capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B) in untreated patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 29 April 2016 to 29 March 2017, 153 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either TT-B (N = 77) or C-B (N = 76). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The primary PFS analysis was performed after 100 events (radiological progression or death) were observed. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL; QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires), and safety. RESULTS: Median (range) duration of treatment was 7.8 (6.0-9.7) months and 6.2 (4.1-9.1) months in the TT-B and C-B groups, respectively. Median (range) PFS was 9.2 (7.6-11.6) and 7.8 (5.5-10.1) months, respectively. Median (range) OS was 18 (15.2 to NA) and 16.2 (12.5 to NA) months, respectively. QoL questionnaires showed no relevant changes over time for either treatment. Therapies were well tolerated. Patients receiving TT-B had more grade ≥3 neutropenia (47% versus 5% with C-B). Patients receiving C-B had more grade ≥3 hand-foot syndrome (12% versus 0% with TT-B) and grade ≥3 diarrhea (8% versus 1% with TT-B), consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. CONCLUSION: TT-B treatment showed promising clinical activity in untreated patients with unresectable mCRC ineligible for intensive therapy, with an acceptable safety profile and no clinically relevant changes in QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02743221 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition panitumumab for patients with non-resectable, advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell cancer: a prospective, open-label, randomised phase III AIO/EORTC trial (POWER).

BACKGROUND: Palliative chemotherapy of advanced oesophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) consists of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (CF) to target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab (P); chemotherapy enhanced overall survival (OS) in advanced colorectal or squamous cell head and neck cancers. With prospective serum and tumour biomarkers, we tested if P added to CF (CFP) improved OS in advanced ESCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with confirmed ESCC that was not curatively resectable or did not qualify for definitive radiochemotherapy, were randomised 1 : 1 to receive CF [cisplatin (C) 100 mg/m2 i.v., day 1; 5-fluorouracil (F) 1000 mg/m2 i.v., days 1-4] or CF plus P (9 mg/kg, i.v., day 1, each q3-week cycle) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board after 40, 70 and 100 patients who completed at least one cycle. After 53 enrolled patients, cisplatin was reduced from 100 mg/m2 to 80 mg/m2. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early based on interim efficacy results triggered by the third safety analysis: median OS (mOS) favoured CF over CFP, regardless of cisplatin dose [hazard ratio (HR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.98; P = 0.028]. In the final analysis, mOS was 10.2 versus 9.4 months for CF versus CFP, respectively (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.75; P = 0.43). One hundred (70.4%) of 142 patients in the safety population died, 51 (51.0%) with CFP. Most deaths were related to disease progression [44/49 (90%) deaths in CF versus 34/51 (67%) deaths in CFP]; objective responses [27/73 (37.0%)] were identical. The most common serious adverse events were kidney injury [3 (4.3%) versus 7 (9.7%)], general health deterioration [5 (7.1%) versus 5 (6.9%)] and dysphagia [4 (5.7%) versus 4 (5.6%)] in CF versus CFP, respectively. There were three (4.3%) and 17 (23.6%) common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade 5 events in CF versus CFP, respectively. Low soluble (s)EGFR levels were associated with better progression-free survival; sEGFR was induced under CFP. CONCLUSION: EGFR inhibition added to CF did not improve survival in unselected advanced ESCC patients. The results support further liquid biopsy studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01627379) and EudraCT (2010-020606-15).

Bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: updated results from the S-AVANT phase III study by the GERCOR Group.

BACKGROUND: The bevacizumab-Avastin® adjuVANT (AVANT) study did not meet its primary end point of improving disease-free survival (DFS) with the addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC). We report here the long-term survival results (S-AVANT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with curatively resected stage III CC were randomly assigned to FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, or XELOX-bevacizumab. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients were randomized: FOLFOX4: n = 955, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab: n = 960, XELOX-bevacizumab: n = 952. With a median of 6.73 years follow-up (interquartile range 5.51-10.54), 672 patients died, of whom 198 (20.7%), 250 (26.0%), and 224 (23.5%) were in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively. The 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 74.6%, 67.2%, and 69.9%, (P = 0.003) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 73.2%, 68.5%, and 71.0% (P = 0.174), respectively. OS and DFS hazard ratios were 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.55; P = 0.008] and 1.16 (95% CI 0.99-1.37; P = 0.063) for FOLFOX4-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4 and 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.39; P = 0.147) and 1.1 (95% CI 0.93-1.29; P = 0.269) for XELOX-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4, respectively. CC-related deaths (n = 542) occurred in 157 (79.3%) patients receiving FOLFOX4, 205 (82.0%) receiving FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and 180 (80.4%) receiving XELOX-bevacizumab (P = 0.764), while non-CC-related deaths occurred in 41 (20.7%), 45 (18.0%), and 44 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cardiovascular-related and sudden deaths during treatment or follow-up were reported in 13 (6.6%), 17 (6.8%), and 14 (6.3%) patients, in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizuamb, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively (P = 0.789). Treatment arm, sex, age, histological differentiation, performance status, T/ N stages, and localization of primary tumor were independent prognostic factors of OS in stage III. CONCLUSIONS: S-AVANT confirms the initial AVANT report. No benefit of the bevacizumab addition to FOLFOX4 adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III CC was observed in terms of DFS with a negative effect in OS, without increase in non-CC related deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: NCT00112918.

Neutropenia and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil in the RECOURSE and J003 trials.

BACKGROUND: The phase II J003 (N = 169) and phase III RECOURSE (N = 800) trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival with trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This post hoc analysis investigated pharmacokinetic data of FTD/TPI exposure and pharmacodynamic markers, such as chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 210 patients from RECOURSE were enrolled in this substudy. A limited sampling approach was used, with three pharmacokinetic samples drawn on day 12 of cycle 1. Patients were categorized as being above or below the median area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) for FTD and TPI. We conducted a post hoc analysis using the entire RECOURSE population to determine the correlations between CIN and clinical outcome. We then carried out a similar analysis on the J003 trial to validate the results. RESULTS: In the RECOURSE subset, patients in the high FTD AUC group had a significantly increased CIN risk. Analyses of the entire population demonstrated that FTD/TPI-treated patients with CIN of any grade in cycles 1 and 2 had significantly longer median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than patients who did not develop CIN and patients in the placebo group. Patients who required an FTD/TPI treatment delay had increased OS and PFS versus those in the placebo group and those who did not develop CIN. Similar results were obtained in the J003 cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In RECOURSE, patients with higher FTD drug exposure had an increased CIN risk. FTD/TPI-treated patients who developed CIN had improved OS and PFS versus those in the placebo group and those who did not develop CIN. Similar findings were reported in the J003 cohort, thus validating the RECOURSE results. The occurrence of CIN may be a useful predictor of treatment outcomes for FTD/TPI-treated patients. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01607957 (RECOURSE). JAPAN PHARMACEUTICAL INFORMATION CENTER NUMBER: JapicCTI-090880 (J003).

Prognosis of microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency stage III colon cancer patients after disease recurrence following adjuvant treatment: results of an ACCENT pooled analysis of seven studies.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to have a poor prognosis. Frequent co-occurrence of MSI/dMMR and BRAFV600E complicates the association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer (CC) from seven adjuvant studies with available data for disease recurrence and MMR and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary end point was survival after recurrence (SAR). Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, gender, performance status, T stage, N stage, primary tumor location, grade, KRAS status, and timing of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI/dMMR tumors had significantly longer SAR than did patients with microsatellite stable/proficient MMR tumors (MSS/pMMR) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.69-0.98; P = 0.029). This finding remained when looking at patients treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimens only (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = 0.048). Same trends for SAR were observed when analyzing MSI/dMMR versus MSS/pMMR tumor subgroups lacking BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.84; P = 0.10) or those harboring BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.88; P = 0.43), without reaching statistical significance. Furthermore, SAR was significantly shorter in tumors with BRAFV600E versus those lacking this mutation (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < 0.0001), even in the subgroup of MSI/dMMR tumors (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; P < 0.0001). Other factors associated with a shorter SAR were as follows: older age, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In stage III CC patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy, and before the era of immunotherapy, the MSI/dMMR phenotype was associated with a better SAR compared with MSS/pMMR. BRAFV600E mutation was a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: NCT00079274, NCT00265811, NCT00004931, NCT00004931, NCT00026273, NCT00096278, NCT00112918.

Health-related quality of life in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving maintenance olaparib.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer often have a detriment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In the randomized, double-blind, phase III POLO trial progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, than placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) and metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The prespecified HRQoL evaluation is reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive maintenance olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.; tablets) or placebo. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module at baseline, every 4 weeks until disease progression, at discontinuation, and 30 days after last dose. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; a ≥10-point change or difference between arms was considered clinically meaningful. Adjusted mean change from baseline was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to sustained clinically meaningful deterioration (TSCMD) was analysed using a log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 154 randomized patients, 89 of 92 olaparib-arm and 58 of 62 placebo-arm patients were included in HRQoL analyses. The adjusted mean change in Global Health Status (GHS) score from baseline was <10 points in both arms and there was no significant between-group difference [-2.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.27, 2.33; P = 0.31]. Analysis of physical functioning scores showed a significant between-group difference (-4.45 points; 95% CI -8.75, -0.16; P = 0.04). There was no difference in TSCMD for olaparib versus placebo for GHS [P = 0.25; hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% CI 0.41, 1.27] or physical functioning (P = 0.32; HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.73, 2.63). CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was preserved with maintenance olaparib treatment with no clinically meaningful difference compared with placebo. These results support the observed efficacy benefit of maintenance olaparib in patients with a gBRCAm and metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINCALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT02184195.

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis: RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study.

Background: : Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods: Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results: RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions: In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01183780.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of oesophageal cancer was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local/locoregional disease, limited disease, locally advanced disease and the management of advanced/metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic oesophageal cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic gastric cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer (GC) was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local, locoregional, locally advanced and metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic GC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic GC representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Dynamic molecular analysis and clinical correlates of tumor evolution within a phase II trial of panitumumab-based therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: Mutations in rat sarcoma (RAS) genes may be a mechanism of secondary resistance in epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-treated patients. Tumor-tissue biopsy testing has been the standard for evaluating mutational status; however, plasma testing of cell-free DNA has been shown to be a more sensitive method for detecting clonal evolution. Materials and methods: Archival pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsy samples from a phase II study of panitumumab in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that also collected plasma samples before, during, and after treatment were analyzed for emergence of mutations during/post-treatment by next-generation sequencing and BEAMing. Results: The rate of emergence of tumor tissue RAS mutations was 9.5% by next-generation sequencing (n = 21) and 6.3% by BEAMing (n = 16). Plasma testing of cell-free DNA by BEAMing revealed a mutant RAS emergence rate of 36.7% (n = 39). Exploratory outcomes analysis of plasma samples indicated that patients who had emergent RAS mutations at progression had similar median progression-free survival to those patients who remained wild-type at progression. Serial analysis of plasma samples showed that the first detected emergence of RAS mutations preceded progression by a median of 3.6 months (range, -0.3 to 7.5 months) and that there did not appear to be a mutant RAS allele frequency threshold that could predict near-term outcomes. Conclusions: This first prospective analysis in mCRC showed that serial plasma biopsies are more inclusive than tissue biopsies for evaluating global tumor heterogeneity; however, the clinical utility of plasma testing in mCRC remains to be further explored. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00891930.

Nintedanib for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (LUME-Colon 1): a phase III, international, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Background: Angiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies. Patients and methods: Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review. Results: From October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n = 384; placebo n = 381). Median follow-up was 13.4 months (interquartile range 11.1-15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4 months with nintedanib versus 6.0 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-1.19; P = 0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4 months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49-0.69; P < 0.0001). There were no complete or partial responses. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of 384 nintedanib-treated patients and 93% of 381 placebo-treated patients. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were liver-related AEs (nintedanib 16%; placebo 8%) and fatigue (nintedanib 9%; placebo 6%). Conclusions: The study failed to meet both co-primary end points. Nintedanib did not improve OS and was associated with a significant but modest increase in PFS versus placebo. Nintedanib was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02149108 (LUME-Colon 1).

Analysis of angiogenesis biomarkers for ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from RAISE, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase III study.

Background: The phase III RAISE trial (NCT01183780) demonstrated that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-2 binding monoclonal antibody ramucirumab plus 5-fluororuracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI as second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. To identify patients who benefit the most from VEGFR-2 blockade, the RAISE trial design included a prospective and comprehensive biomarker program that assessed the association of biomarkers with ramucirumab efficacy outcomes. Patients and methods: Plasma and tumor tissue collection was mandatory. Overall, 1072 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to the addition of ramucirumab or placebo to FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Patients were then randomized 1 : 2, for the biomarker program, to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups. Analyses were carried out using exploratory assays to assess the correlations of baseline marker levels [VEGF-C, VEGF-D, sVEGFR-1, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 (plasma), and VEGFR-2 (tumor tissue)] with clinical outcomes. Cox regression analyses were carried out for each candidate biomarker with stratification factor adjustment. Results: Biomarker results were available from >80% (n = 894) of patients. Analysis of the ME subset determined a VEGF-D level of 115 pg/ml was appropriate for high/low subgroup analyses. Evaluation of the combined ME + MC populations found that the median OS in the ramucirumab + FOLFIRI arm compared with placebo + FOLFIRI showed an improvement of 2.4 months in the high VEGF-D subgroup [13.9 months (95% CI 12.5-15.6) versus 11.5 months (95% CI 10.1-12.4), respectively], and a decrease of 0.5 month in the low VEGF-D subgroup [12.6 months (95% CI 10.7-14.0) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.8-17.0), respectively]. PFS results were consistent with OS. No trends were evident with the other antiangiogenic candidate biomarkers. Conclusions: The RAISE biomarker program identified VEGF-D as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line mCRC. Development of an assay appropriate for testing in clinical practice is currently ongoing. Clinical trials registration: NCT01183780.

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300.

Background: There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients and methods: Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4-2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.

Session 2: Synchronous metastatic disease-liver first or primary first? The oncologist decides.

There have been no randomized trial data to guide teams with regard to the order of surgery in patients with synchronous metastatic disease. On the one hand patients with borderline resectable liver metastases may lose the opportunity to undergo curative liver resection if the primary is resected first. For other patients, a symptomatic primary cancer may not be amenable to a delay. In the absence of clear evidence-based outcomes, Professor Van Cutsem shares the recent expert consensus opinions on the current recommendations and an overview of the limited evidence base available.