Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected stage III colon cancer, 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care. The IDEA collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was noninferior to 6 months. Despite failing to meet its primary endpoint, the subgroup analyses demonstrated noninferiority based on regimen and treatment duration when a risk-stratified approach was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of the results of the IDEA collaboration, we evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy prescribing practice patterns, including planned adjuvant treatment regimen and duration from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2021. The time period was selected to evaluate chemotherapy prescribing patterns prior to the abstract presentation of the IDEA collaboration in June 2017 and after full manuscript publication in March 2018. RESULTS: A total of 399 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the analysis. A significant increasing trend for use of 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed after presentation of the IDEA abstract (P<.001). A significant change in CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) prescribing was also observed, increasing from 14% of patients prior to presentation of the IDEA abstract to 48% after presentation (P<.001). Comparing 3 months of CAPOX with 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin), 3 months of CAPOX use also steadily increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20-1.37; P<.001). Among subgroups of interest, no differences in adoption of CAPOX were observed. The adoption of 3 months of CAPOX was similar in patients with low-risk cancer (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37) and those with high-risk cancer (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the IDEA collaboration failing to demonstrate noninferiority of 3 months' duration of adjuvant therapy compared with 6 months, the findings have influenced practice prescribing patterns, favoring CAPOX and a shorter duration of planned adjuvant treatment.

Universal Genetic Testing vs. Guideline-Directed Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Among Traditionally Underrepresented Patients in a Community Oncology Program.

Background Detection of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) has implications for cancer screening, prognosis, treatment selection, clinical trial enrollment, and family testing. Published guidelines provide indications for PGV testing, determined by clinical and demographic factors, but their applicability in an ethnically and racially diverse community hospital population is unknown. This study describes the diagnostic and incremental yield of universal multi-gene panel testing in a diverse population in a community cancer practice. Methods We completed a prospective study of proactive germline genetic sequencing among patients with solid tumor malignancies at a community-based oncology practice in downtown Jacksonville, FL, between June 2020 and September 2021. The patients were unselected for cancer type, stage, family history, race/ethnicity, and age. PGVs identified using an 84-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) tumor genomic testing platform were stratified by penetrance. National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) guidelines determined incremental PGV rates. Results Two hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled, with a median age of 63 years, 78.5% female. 32.7% were Black/African American, and 5.4% were Hispanic. 39.9% of patients were commercially insured, Medicare/Medicaid insured 52.5%, and 2.7% were uninsured. The most common cancers in this cohort were breast (61.9%), lung (10.3%), and colorectal (7.2%). Twenty-three patients (10.3%) carried one or more PGVs, and 50.2% carried a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Though there was no significant difference in the rate of PGVs based on race/ethnicity, African Americans were numerically more likely to have a VUS reported than whites (P=0.059). Eighteen (8.1%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that practice guidelines would not have detected, which was higher in non-whites. Conclusions In this racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, universal multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) increased diagnostic yield over targeted guideline-informed testing. Rates of VUS and incremental PGV were higher in non-white populations.

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.

A single-institute experience with sorafenib in untreated and previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Sorafenib is considered the standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of our cancer center's experience with sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Eligible patients were required to have measurable disease and were allowed to have been refractory (with documented progression) to prior systemic therapies before starting on sorafenib. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (median age = 56 years) who were treated at the Ohio State University with sorafenib were included in this study. Thirty-eight percent had exposure to prior systemic therapy. The median time to tumor progression was 5.4 months and the median overall survival 7 months. For the patients with exposure to prior systemic therapy, the median time to tumor progression was 9.1 months and is the median overall survival 9.83 months. There were no unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has interesting activity and acceptable tolerability in patients with advanced HCC, including those who failed prior therapies.