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.

The Clinical Significance of CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in Management of Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma.

Importance: Serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, & 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: Assessing the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes, pathologic, and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Design: This is a retrospective study with results reported in 2023. The median follow-up time was 43 months. Setting: Single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. Participants: Under an approved Institutional Review Board protocol, the Palantir Foundry software system was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least one tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between 2016 and 2023. Results: A total of 1,338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median age of 56.5 years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (80.7%). CEA was elevated in more than half of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 34% and 27%, respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; 82% vs 95%, 84% vs 92%, and 69% vs 93% elevated vs normal for CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 respectively (all p<0.0001). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers increased prognostic ability. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9 or CA125 had markedly worse survival with 5-year survival rates of 59%, 64%, and 57%, respectively (HR vs. normal : 9.8, 6.0, 7.6, all p<0.0001). 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 vs. normal : 3.4, 1.8, 3.9, p<0.0001 for CEA and CA125, p=0.0019 for CA19-9). Interestingly tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high relative to low-grade tumors (18.3 vs. 15.0, p=0.0009). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with a 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all three tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Mutation in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the utility of measuring CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 in the management of appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their prognostic value, all three biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

A phase II, randomized, double blind trial of calcium aluminosilicate clay versus placebo for the prevention of diarrhea in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan.

PURPOSE: Calcium aluminosilicate clay (CASAD) is a naturally occurring clay that serves as a cation exchange absorbent. We hypothesized that oral administration of CASAD would reduce the rate of grade 3/4 diarrhea associated with irinotecan use for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) by adsorbing the SN-38 metabolite. METHODS: Patients receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy were randomized equally between CASAD and placebo arms in this multicenter trial in order to assess differences in the proportions of patients with grade 3/4 diarrhea within 6 weeks. Additionally, we compared symptom severity between the two arms using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and May 2012, 100 patients were enrolled. In evaluable patients, 7 of 43 (16 %) on the CASAD arm compared to 3 of 32 (9 %) on the placebo arm experienced grade 3/4 diarrhea (P = 0.70). The rate of any diarrhea among all patients was similar (CASAD arm, 64 % vs. placebo arm, 70 %). The rate of study dropout was 14 % in the CASAD arm and 38 % in the placebo arm (P = 0.01). No differences were found in symptom severity, individual symptom items, and in serious adverse events between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo, CASAD use was safe but ineffective in preventing diarrhea in metastatic CRC patients treated with irinotecan-containing chemotherapy regimens. There were no distinct signals in terms of patient symptoms between arms, but there was significantly more patient dropout in the placebo arm. Future CASAD trials will focus on the active treatment of diarrhea.

Preoperative chemotherapy prior to pulmonary metastasectomy in surgically resected primary colorectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of preoperative chemotherapy prior to pulmonary metastasectomy for patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is unknown. Here, we identify outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resected primary CRC who then underwent pulmonary metastasectomy. METHODS: We queried a prospective database to identify treatment characteristics. Multivariate analyses identified predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 229 patients underwent lung metastasectomy, of whom 115 proceeded to surgery without chemotherapy while 114 received preoperative regimen based on oxaliplatin (32%), irinotecan (46%), capecitabine (16%), or other (6%). Median PFS in preoperative chemotherapy vs. surgery alone arms were comparable (p=0.004). Patients on oxaliplatin-based therapy had an improved OS vs. an irinotecan, capecitabine, or alternate regimen (p=.019). On multivariate analysis, the irinotecan subset had a worse OS (HR 1.846; 95% CI 1.070, 3.185) vs. surgery alone arm (p=0.028). The OS of an oxaliplatin-based regimen vs. no chemotherapy was inconclusive (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.237 to 1.389, p=0.218). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a worse PFS and OS for the male gender and an incomplete resection (R2). CONCLUSION: Prospective trials on specific preoperative regimens and criteria for patient selection may identify a role for preoperative chemotherapy prior to a curative pulmonary metastasectomy.