Serum Tumor Markers and Outcomes in Patients With Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Objective: To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival). Results: A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

RAS Mutation Status Should Not Be Used to Predict Outcome from Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Genetic biomarkers guide systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) in metastatic colorectal cancer. It has been suggested they have a role in selecting patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM) for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). This study aims to quantify the effect of mutation status on overall survival (OS), adjusting for confounders such as pre-operative systemic anticancer treatment (SACT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC for CRPM at a national peritoneal tumour centre (2004-2017) was performed. Demographics, treatment history and operative data were extracted. Known biomarker gene mutation status was noted including: KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and MMR. Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to determine overall survival. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients were included. Median follow-up time was 34.7 months (range 5.4-184.9 months) and median OS was 38.7 months (95% CI 32.4-44.9 months). Biomarker status was as follows: KRAS (n = 114), NRAS (n = 85), BRAF (n = 44), PIK3CA (n = 15) and MMR (n = 21). Mutation rates were 45.6%, 3.5%, 13.6%, 13.3% and 14.3%, respectively. Seventy-four per cent underwent complete cytoreduction (CC = 0), 81% received SACT pre-CRS/HIPEC and 65% post-CRS/HIPEC. RAS (p = 0.21) or BRAF (p = 0.109) mutation status did not predict OS. Nodal involvement, extramural vascular invasion, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) score, CC score, SACT post-HIPEC and NRAS mutation were significant negative predictors of OS in univariate analysis (p < 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed CC-score > 1 (HR: 7.599, 95% CI 3.402-16.974, p < 0.0001) as a negative predictor of OS. RAS mutation status did not affect outcome (HR: 1.682, 95% CI 0.995-2.843, p = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: RAS mutation status should not in isolation be used to select patients for CRS/HIPEC.

The Impact of Changes in Service Delivery in Patients With Colorectal Cancer During the Initial Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed significant changes in cancer service delivery resulting in increased anxiety and distress in both patients and clinicians. We aimed to investigate how these changes have been perceived by patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and identify determinants of increased anxiety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An anonymized 32-item survey in the specialized lower gastrointestinal cancer outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer center in North West England between May 18 and July 1, 2020. Self-reported anxiety was based on the General Anxiety Disorder-7 screening tool. RESULTS: Of 143 participants who completed the survey (response rate, 67%), 115 (82%) were male, and the median age group was 61 to 70 years. A total of 112 (78%) participants had telephone consultation (83% met needs), and 57 (40%) had radiologic scan results discussed over the phone (96% met needs). In total, 23 (18%) participants were considered to have anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 score ≥ 5), with 7 (5.5%) scoring for moderate or severe anxiety. Those concerned about getting COVID-19 infection, and worried COVID-19 would have effect on their mental health, and affect their experience of cancer care, were most likely to have anxiety (P < .05, multivariate analysis). The majority did not feel they needed support during this phase of the pandemic. Participants felt that friends and family had been very supportive, but less so the primary care services (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey suggest that some of the service changes implemented may have already improved the overall experience of cancer care among patients with colorectal cancer at our institute. Reassuringly, the incidence of participants with moderate to severe anxiety levels during the peak of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom was much lower than anticipated. Importantly, patients were much more concerned about their cancer treatment than COVID-19, emphasizing the need to continue to provide comprehensive cancer care even with a "second wave" of COVID-19.

Zebrafish: a new companion for translational research in oncology.

In an era of high-throughput "omic" technologies, the unprecedented amount of data that can be generated presents a significant opportunity but simultaneously an even greater challenge for oncologists trying to provide personalized treatment. Classically, preclinical testing of new targets and identification of active compounds against those targets have entailed the extensive use of established human cell lines, as well as genetically modified mouse tumor models. Patient-derived xenografts in zebrafish may in the near future provide a platform for selecting an appropriate personalized therapy and together with zebrafish transgenic tumor models represent an alternative vehicle for drug development. The zebrafish is readily genetically modified. The transparency of zebrafish embryos and the recent development of pigment-deficient zebrafish afford researchers the valuable capacity to observe directly cancer formation and progression in a live vertebrate host. The zebrafish is amenable to transplantation assays that test the serial passage of fluorescently labeled tumor cells as well as their capacity to disseminate and/or metastasize. Progress achieved to date in genetic engineering and xenotransplantation will establish the zebrafish as one of the most versatile animal models for cancer research. A model organism that can be used in transgenesis, transplantation assays, single-cell functional assays, and in vivo imaging studies make zebrafish a natural companion for mice in translational oncology research.