Transitioning from second-line to third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

In the setting of metastatic colorectal cancer, many gains in patient outcomes have been achieved throughout the last 2 decades. A primary driver of these gains is access to more lines of therapy. In the palliative metastatic setting, all patients ultimately progress and require continued treatment sequencing. The goal is to expose patients to all lines of available therapies. It is now possible to better select patients for each therapy. Treatment selection algorithms encompass disease factors and patient characteristics, such as overall condition and age. Appropriate molecular profiling assessments should be available early in the treatment course, to drive decision-making and allow use of alternative therapies when possible. The transition to third-line therapy can be prompted by changes in imaging scans or laboratory tests, as well as changes in the patient's symptom burden. It can be problematic to delay initiation of third-line therapy when it is clinically indicated. Many oncologists will consider rechallenging patients with the same chemotherapy that did not work earlier. Although this strategy is reasonable, it should not necessarily take precedence over use of agents with proven efficacy in later lines of therapy in randomized clinical trials, such as regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Clinicians now commonly adjust the dose of regorafenib. A delay in the initiation of these third-line agents can allow the patient's performance status to decrease, thus diminishing the opportunity for a successful outcome.

Underuse of exon mutational analysis for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have become the guideline-recommended therapy for high-risk resected and advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Exon mutational analysis (EMA) is used to inform pretherapy response to TKI and may predict overall prognosis. Despite these benefits, EMA remains underused, and its impact on TKI therapy decision-making remains unexplored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort was established from 104 patients receiving treatment for GISTs from 2006 to 2017. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that EMA should be considered for all patients undergoing TKI therapy to identify genotypes that are likely, or unlikely, to respond to treatment. We first tracked guideline-considered EMA use and subsequent impact on treatment decision-making. A questionnaire was then administered to gastrointestinal medical oncologists to assess EMA perception. RESULTS: Among 104 GIST patients, 54 (52%) received TKI therapy. Of these, only 22 (41%) received EMA. Informed by EMA, treatment decisions included 59% who continued with original TKI therapy, 32% who switched to an alternative TKI, and 9% who discontinued or received no TKI. Although 92% of physicians indicated EMA was a valuable tool, only 62% indicated they used it "frequently" or "always" to inform treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of patients receiving TKI therapy for GISTs received EMA at a comprehensive cancer center. Despite this low uptake, when it was performed, EMA guided alternative treatment decision in 41% of patients. Physician survey responses indicated that interventions targeting physician education and an electronic medical record reminder may improve EMA uptake.

Phase II study of temozolomide and veliparib combination therapy for sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To determine the antitumor efficacy and tolerability of combination temozolomide (TMZ) and veliparib (ABT-888) in patients with advanced, sorafenib-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed, sorafenib-refractory HCC. All patients received 40 mg ABT-888 PO daily on days 1-7 and 150 mg/m(2) TMZ PO daily on days 1-5 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) at 2 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile. Tumor response was assessed every 2 cycles using RECIST criteria, and toxicities were assessed using CTCAE v4.03. RESULTS: We enrolled 16 patients in the first phase of the trial, but the study was discontinued due to a poor ORR; only four patients (25 %) had SD after 2 cycles. Twelve patients (75 %) were taken off study after 2 months of treatment; 10 of these had disease progression. Two patients (13 %) were taken off study due to severe toxicity, and one patient (6 %) died from non-treatment-related liver failure. One patient had SD for 16 months, receiving 11 cycles of therapy before being taken off study. The most common grade 3 treatment-related toxicities included vomiting (n = 2), thrombocytopenia (n = 2), nausea (n = 1), and anemia (n = 1). The median PFS was 1.9 months, and median OS was 13.1 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of TMZ and ABT-888 is well tolerated in patients with advanced HCC. However, the regimen failed to show survival benefit. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01205828.

Evaluation of hypertension as a marker of bevacizumab efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Predictive factors for efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor pathway-targeted therapies have not been identified or confirmed. Hypertension has been observed as a side effect to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. The goal of our study was to retrospectively assess if hypertension induced during treatment with bevacizumab was associated with clinical outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with colorectal cancer treated with bevacizumab at Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2004 to 2008. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were eligible. Eighteen patients (21%) developed grades 3 hypertension. Twelve patients (14%) developed grade 2 hypertension. Six patients (7%) developed grade 1 hypertension. Median overall survival (OS) was 29 months and progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 months. Patients with any grade hypertension while on bevacizumab had an adjusted hazard ratio for death of 0.32 (p = 0.03) and adjusted risk of progression of 51% (p = 0.02) compared to those without hypertension (HTN). When stratified by metastatic disease, patients presenting with metastases who developed HTN had better OS and PFS (p = 0.03 and 0.01.) Among patients without metastases at diagnosis, those with HTN on bevacizumab had better OS and PFS but results were not statistically significant (p = 0.60 and 0.62, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that bevacizumab-induced hypertension may represent an interesting prognostic factor for clinical outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients receiving bevacizumab.