Phase I Study of Lenvatinib and Capecitabine with External Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with fluoropyrimidine followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy has been the standard treatment of locally advanced stages II and III rectal cancer for many years. There is a high risk for disease recurrence; therefore, optimizing chemoradiation strategies remains an unmet need. Based on a few studies, there is evidence of the synergistic effect of VEGF/PDGFR blockade with radiation. METHODS: In this phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study, we studied 3 different dose levels of lenvatinib in combination with capecitabine-based chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were enrolled, and 19 were eligible for assessment of efficacy. The combination was well tolerated, with an MTD of 24 mg lenvatinib. The downstaging rate for the cohort and the pCR was 84.2% and 37.8%, respectively. Blood-based protein biomarkers TSP-2, VEGF-R3, and VEGF correlated with NAR score and were also differentially expressed between response categories. The NAR, or neoadjuvant rectal score, encompasses cT clinical tumor stage, pT pathological tumor stage, and pN pathological nodal stage and provides a continuous variable for evaluating clinical trial outcomes. CONCLUSION: The combination of lenvatinib with capecitabine and radiation in locally advanced rectal cancer was found to be safe and tolerable, and potential blood-based biomarkers were identified. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02935309.

Gastrointestinal Disease-Specific Survivorship Care: A New Personalized Model Integrating Onco-Wellness.

Although the number of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer survivors is projected to increase in the coming years, there are currently no survivorship care models that address the specific and growing needs of this population. Current survivorship care models were evaluated to assess their suitability for GI cancer survivors. A survivorship care model based on foundational wellness principles is under development to address the specific needs of GI cancer survivors. This model delivers a cohesive and collaborative care continuum for survivors of different GI malignancies. Oncology providers in GI departments and internal medicine providers in survivorship programs are positioned to provide a comprehensive approach for the care of patients treated with curative intent. Survivorship care is introduced at the conclusion of active treatment in the form of an Onco-wellness consultation, an in-person or telemedicine comprehensive care plan creation and review by our Survivorship Program. Personalized care plan including long term and late effects of treatment, nutrition, physical activity and rehabilitation recommendations, prevention of secondary malignancies and psychosocial needs are reviewed. As patients transition from active treatment to survivorship within the GI Program, the GI Advance Practice Professionals (APPs) are well-positioned to deliver comprehensive survivorship care specific to the GI patient's needs while integrating recommendations and principles from the Onco-wellness consultation. With projected shortages of both oncology and primary care physicians, such an APP-based model has the potential to bridge gaps in the survivorship care continuum and mutually benefit patients and physicians.

Multimodality Management of "Borderline Resectable" Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Report of a Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) constitute approximately 3% of pancreatic neoplasms. Like patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), some of these patients present with "borderline resectable disease." For these patients, an optimal treatment approach is lacking. We report our institution's experience with borderline resectable PanNETs using multimodality treatment. METHODS: We identified patients with borderline resectable PanNETs who had received neoadjuvant therapy at our institution between 2000 and 2013. The definition of borderline resectability was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for PDAC. Neoadjuvant regimen, radiographic response, pathologic response, surgical margins, nodal retrieval, number of positive nodes, and recurrence were documented. Statistics were descriptive. RESULTS: Of 112 patients who underwent surgical resection for PanNETs during the study period, 23 received neoadjuvant therapy, 6 of whom met all inclusion criteria and had borderline resectable disease. These 6 patients received at least 1 cycle of temozolomide and capecitabine, with 3 also receiving radiation. All had radiographic evidence of treatment response. Four (67%) had negative-margin resections. Four patients had histologic evidence of a moderate response. Follow-up (3.0-4.3 years) indicated that all patients were alive, with 5/6 free of disease (1 patient with metastatic disease still on treatment without progression). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodality treatment strategy (neoadjuvant temozolomide and capecitabine ± radiation) can be successfully applied to patients with PanNETs who meet NCCN borderline resectable criteria for PDAC. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the use of a multimodality protocol in the treatment of patients with borderline resectable PanNETs.

Phase I study of pre-operative continuous 5-FU and sorafenib with external radiation therapy in locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: The standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative treatment with fluoropyrimidine-based chemoradiotherapy. Sorafenib works synergistically with radiation and inhibits Ras/Raf, PDFGR, and VEGFR. This phase I study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib with infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and radiation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with confirmed stage II or III rectal cancer were recruited in 4 cohorts of 3 patients per dose level, with an expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose. A 3+3 dose escalation design was used. Radiation was given in 28 fractions at 1.8 Gy (50.4 Gy) day 1-5 at all dose levels. Initial dose of sorafenib was 200mg qd and titrated up to 400mg BID to determine the MTD. Standard dose of infusional 5-FU was used (225 mg/m(2)/24h). Patients underwent surgery 6-10 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Between August 2011 and August 2014, 17 patients (median age of 54 years) were enrolled. After toxicities requiring dose interruptions were observed in cohort 1 (2 patients with grade 2 (G2) and grade 3 (G3) hand foot skin reaction and 1 patient with G2 mucositis), the protocol was amended, changing administration of chemotherapy and sorafenib from daily to days 1-5 only. With the amended protocol, the primary G3 toxicity was hypertension in 2 patients at the 200-mg adjusted dose level (day1-5) and 1 patient at the 400-mg twice daily dose level. One patient had G3 ALT elevation at 400mg, and no grade IV toxicities were observed. G1 and G2 toxicities included hand-foot skin reaction, diarrhea, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, and proctitis. No perioperative complications were seen. Two patients refused to undergo surgery. The pathological complete remission (pCR) rate was 33%, and downstaging was observed in 85.7% of patients. Median neoadjuvant rectal cancer score was 8.7. CONCLUSIONS: With the changed dosing schedule, this regimen was very well tolerated. The tumor pCR and downstaging rates are encouraging and support further clinical investigation of this regimen.

Outcomes of a Clinical Pathway for Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Without prospective data establishing a consensus multimodality approach to borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, institutional treatment regimens vary. This study investigated the outcomes of the clinical pathway at the author's institution, which consists of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, docetaxel, capecitabine, and stereotactic radiotherapy followed by surgery. METHODS: The study reviewed all cases that met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) diagnostic criteria for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1 January 2006, to 31 December 2013. Pancreatectomy rates, margin status, pathologic response, disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively examined. Standard statistical methods and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: Of 121 patients who met criteria, 101 entered the clinical pathway, and 94 (93.1 %) completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Of the 101 patients, 55 (54.5 %) underwent pancreatectomy, with 53 patients (96.4 %) having microscopically negative margins (R0) and 2 patients (3.6 %) having microscopically positive margins (R1). Vascular resection was required for 22 patients (40 %), with rates of 95.5 % for R0 (n = 21) and 4.5 % for R1 (n = 1). A pathologic response to treatment was demonstrated by 45 patients (81.8 %) and a complete response by 10 patients (14.5 %). Pancreatectomy resulted in a median DFS of 23 months (95 % conflidence interval [CI] 14.5-31.5), a median DSS of 43 months (95 % CI, 25.7-60.3), and a median OS of 33 months (95 % CI, 25.0-41.0) versus a median DSS and OS of 14 months (95 % CI, 10.9-17.1) for patients without pancreatectomy (DSS: P = 3.5 × 10(-13); OS: P = 4.7 × 10(-10)). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated high rates for neoajduvant therapy completion (93.1 %) and pancreatectomy (54.5 %). After pancreatectomy, DSS was significantly improved (43 months), with a pathologic response demonstrated by 81.8 % and a complete response by 14.5 % of the patients. The results support further study of this borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma clinical pathway.

Randomized phase III multi-institutional study of TNFerade biologic with fluorouracil and radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: final results.

PURPOSE: TNFerade biologic is a novel means of delivering tumor necrosis factor alpha to tumor cells by gene transfer. We herein report final results of the largest randomized phase III trial performed to date among patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and the first to test gene transfer against this malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 304 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to standard of care plus TNFerade (SOC + TNFerade) versus standard of care alone (SOC). SOC consisted of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil (200 mg/m(2) per day continuous infusion). TNFerade was injected intratumorally before the first fraction of radiotherapy each week at a dose of 4 × 10(11) particle units by using either a percutaneous transabdominal or an endoscopic ultrasound approach. Four weeks after chemoradiotherapy, patients began gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously) with or without erlotinib (100 to 150 mg per day orally) until progression or toxicity. RESULTS: The analysis included 187 patients randomly assigned to SOC + TNFerade and 90 to SOC by using a modified intention-to-treat approach. Median follow-up was 9.1 months (range, 0.1 to 50.5 months). Median survival was 10.0 months for patients in both the SOC + TNFerade and SOC arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.22; P = .26). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months for SOC + TNFerade versus 7.0 months for SOC (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .51). Among patients treated on the SOC + TNFerade arm, multivariate analysis showed that TNFerade injection by an endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric/transduodenal approach rather than a percutaneous transabdominal approach was a risk factor for inferior PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.06; P = .032). The patients in the SOC + TNFerade arm experienced more grade 1 to 2 fever and chills than those in the SOC arm (P < .001) but both arms had similar rates of grade 3 to 4 toxicities (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: SOC + TNFerade is safe but not effective for prolonging survival in patients with LAPC.

Cryoablation of persistent Barrett's epithelium after definitive chemoradiation therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Dysplastic Barrett's epithelium (BE) persists after chemoradiation therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) arising in Barrett's esophagus. This phenomenon may present a significant risk for development of metachronous adenocarcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the safety and efficacy of endoscopic cryoablation therapy for persistent dysplastic BE in patients with complete clinical response after definitive chemoradiation therapy for EAC. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center experience. PATIENTS: Radiation and endoscopic oncology treatment records were reviewed between January 2004 and September 2009. Fourteen patients with EAC who had been treated with definitive chemoradiation therapy followed by cryoablation were identified. INTERVENTION: Cryoablation therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Reduction in Prague Classification and dysplasia status following cryoablation therapy. Complications reported at 24 hour after the procedure telephone survey and at subsequent endoscopy. RESULTS: After complete clinical response of EAC to chemoradiation therapy, the median length of persistent BE was Prague classification C1M4 (C = circumferential extent, M = maximal extent). Cryoablation reduced the median length of persistent BE to Prague classification C0M1 (P = .009 with respect to circumferential extent and P = .004 with respect to maximal extent of BE). All 14 patients had dysplastic BE. Cryoablation resulted in histological downgrading in all 14 patients. Among patients with high-grade dysplasia, 20% (2/10) were reduced to low-grade dysplasia, 60% (6/10) to BE with no dysplasia, and 20% (2/10) to no BE. Among patients with low-grade dysplasia, 75% (3/4) were reduced to BE with no dysplasia, and 25% (1/4) to no BE. The median number of cryoablation treatments administered to the 14 patients evaluated was 1 (mean 1.5, range 1-5). Eighty-six percent (12/14) of patients reported no complaints during the 24 hours after cryoablation. No occurrences of perforation and no esophageal strictures were reported at surveillance endoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Single-center, retrospective design involving a small number of patients. CONCLUSION: Our observations suggest that cryoablation therapy is safe and effective for the treatment of persistent BE after definitive chemoradiation.

Pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy is the major determinant of survival in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer remains a malignancy with high morbidity and mortality despite improvements to diagnosis, staging, chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) may improve oncologic outcome in many patients, however the degree to which patients benefit remains unclear. We examined the relationship between pathologic response to NT and magnitude of benefit in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: Using a comprehensive esophageal cancer database, we identified patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1994 and 2008. Pathologic response was denoted as complete (pCR), partial (pPR), and nonresponse (NR). Clinical and pathologic data were compared using Fisher's exact and chi-square when appropriate, while Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: We identified 347 patients who underwent esophagectomy, and 262 (75.5%) were treated with NT. The median age was 66 years (28-86 years) with median follow-up of 20 months (1-177 months). There were 106 (40.5%) patients exhibiting pCR, 95 (36.3%) with pPR, and 61 (23.3%) with NR. The rate of R0 resections was higher amongst pCR (100%) compared with 94.7% in pPR (P = 0.02) and 87.5% in NR (P = 0.0007). There were 15 (14.2%) recurrences in pCR, 22 (23.7%) in pPR, and 17 (28.8%) in NR (P = 0.04). Patients achieving pCR had 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of 52% and 52%, respectively, compared with 36% and 38% in pPR and 22% and 19% in NR (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer patients frequently succumb to their disease. However, patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy who achieve pCR have a higher rate of R0 resections, fewer recurrences, and improved 5-year OS and DFS.

Does Barrett's esophagus respond to chemoradiation therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus?

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is frequently associated with Barrett's esophagus (BE). The response of esophageal adenocarcinoma to chemoradiation therapy is well described; however, the effect of chemoradiation on tumor-associated BE has not been specifically reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the response of tumor-associated BE to chemoradiation therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Care Center experience. PATIENTS: The study cohort consisted of 43 patients with stage I to IVA esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with BE who received either neoadjuvant or definitive chemoradiation therapy and underwent either esophagectomy or surveillance at our institution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The presence and extent of BE after chemoradiation therapy of esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with endoscopically documented pretreatment BE. RESULTS: BE persisted after chemoradiation therapy in 93% (40/43) of cases (95% CI, 83%-99%). Twenty-seven patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy before esophagectomy. Persistent BE was detected in all 27 surgical specimens (100%). In 59% (16/27) of the cases, there was complete pathologic tumor response. Sixteen patients received definitive chemoradiation therapy. Persistent pretreatment BE was identified in 88% (14/16) by surveillance endoscopy (95% CI, 60%-98%). The mean length of BE before and after chemoradiation was 6.6 cm and 5.8 cm, respectively (P = .38). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, small sample size, and single-site data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoradiation therapy of esophageal adenocarcinoma does not eliminate tumor-associated BE, nor does it affect the length of the BE segment.

The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer.

Advancements have been made in multiple aspects of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to rectal cancer. These advances include clinical staging such as endorectal ultrasound and pelvic MRI, surgical approaches such as transanal excision, and adjuvant treatments such as new chemotherapeutic agents and refined radiotherapy techniques. Optimal patient outcomes depend on multidisciplinary involvement for tailored therapy. The successful management of rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, with treatment decisions based on precise patient evaluations by a group of clinicians, including surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists. The accurate identification of patients who are candidates for combined modality treatment is particularly essential to optimize outcomes. Technical and technologic advances have led to the availability of a wide range of surgical approaches for managing rectal cancer. Concomitantly, similar critical developments and refinements have also occurred in the administration of radiation and chemotherapeutic agents. This article provides an overview of the multimodal treatment of patients who have rectal cancer, with a focus on staging, surgical techniques, and the application of chemotherapy or radiation in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings.