NCI10066: a Phase 1/2 study of olaparib in combination with ramucirumab in previously treated metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Our preclinical work revealed tumour hypoxia induces homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), increasing sensitivity to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We aimed to induce tumour hypoxia with ramucirumab thereby sensitising tumours to olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multi-institution single-arm Phase 1/2 trial enrolled patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma refractory to ≥1 systemic treatment. In dose escalation, olaparib was evaluated at escalating dose levels with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of Phase 1 was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and in Phase 2 the primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received ramucirumab and olaparib. The RP2D was olaparib 300 mg twice daily with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg. In evaluable patients at the RP2D the ORR was 6/43 (14%) (95% CI 4.7-25.6). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.7-13.0). Non-statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed for patients with tumours with mutations in HRD genes. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib and ramucirumab is well-tolerated with efficacy that exceeds historical controls with ramucirumab single agent for gastric cancer in a heavily pre-treated patient population.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2023.

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.

PD-1 targeted immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: current utilization and outcomes in the USA.

Objective: To evaluate the utilization and outcomes of PD-1-directed immunotherapy (PD-1 IMT) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic therapy and PD-1 IMT (nivolumab/pembrolizumab) were included from the Flatiron database. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox models with the following subgroup analyses: patients with data on clinical performance and liver function and patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results: n = 1770 patients were included (PD-1 IMT 19.3%). Overall, PD-1 IMT was associated with longer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57). This effect was robust across both subgroup analyses with HR: 0.72 (subgroup 1) and HR: 0.57 (subgroup 2). Conclusions: PD-1 IMT is increasingly used in clinical practice and associated with an OS benefit.

PD-1-directed immunotherapy (PD-1 IMT) is increasingly used for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the USA. Patients receiving PD-1 IMT demonstrate a favorable overall survival compared with those without PD-1 IMT treatment.

A phase 1b expansion study of TAS-102 with oxaliplatin for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: TAS-102, a novel antimetabolite, is approved for treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study sought to determine whether the addition of TAS-102 to oxaliplatin (TAS-OX) was safe and effective in metastatic CRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm phase 1b study enrolled patients with metastatic CRC previously treated with 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In dose escalation, TAS-102 was given at 3 dose levels: 25, 30, and 35 mg/m2 twice daily on day 1 to day 5 with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of dose escalation was the recommended dose for expansion, and in dose expansion, the primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were treated with TAS-OX. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the 11 patients treated in escalation. The recommended dose for expansion was 35 mg/m2 TAS-102 twice daily on day 1 to day 5 in combination with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 in 14-day cycles. In the intention-to-treat population, the ORR was 2.4% (95% CI, 0%-12.9%) with 1 of 41 patients having a partial response, although 12 (29%) had tumor shrinkage. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.4-4.8 months) and median overall survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7-10 months). CONCLUSIONS: TAS-OX is safe with no unexpected toxicities at standard doses of each agent. The combination did not result in a clinically meaningful ORR, although progression-free survival and overall survival were encouraging in this heavily pretreated population. LAY SUMMARY: For metastatic colorectal cancer, the treatment combination of TAS-102 and oxaliplatin was found to be well-tolerated and revealed no unexpected side effects. Twelve of 41 patients had reductions in the size of their tumor, and the study treatment delayed the time to tumor growth as opposed to what would be expected.

Microsatellite Instability and KRAS Mutation in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: Prevalence, Geographic Discrepancies, and Outcomes From the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to assess microsatellite and KRAS status, prevalence, and impact on outcome in stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2010 to 2016 US National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with stage IV CRC. Prevalence of microsatellite status (microsatellite instability-high [MSI-H] or microsatellite stable [MSS]) and KRAS status (KRAS mutation or wild-type) of the primary CRC was assessed. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models in patients with complete data on both microsatellite and KRAS status and information on follow-up. RESULTS: Information on microsatellite and KRAS status was available for 10,844 and 25,712 patients, respectively, and OS data were available for 5,904 patients. The overall prevalence of MSI-H status and KRAS mutation was 3.1% and 42.4%, respectively. Prevalence of MSI-H ranged between 1.6% (rectosigmoid junction) and 5.2% (transverse colon), and between 34.7% (sigmoid colon) and 58.2% (cecum) for KRAS mutation. MSI-H rates were highest in East North Central US states (4.1%), and KRAS mutation rates were highest in West South Central US states (44.1%). Multivariable analyses revealed longer OS for patients with KRAS wild-type versus mutation status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; P=.004), those with MSS versus MSI-H status (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.9; P=.003), and those with left-sided versus right-sided CRC (multivariable HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.6-0.7; P<.001). The effect of KRAS mutation further varied with CRC site and microsatellite status (P=.002 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the primary site and US geography, stage IV CRC shows distinct mutational behavior. KRAS mutation, MSI-H, and primary CRC sidedness independently affect OS and interact with distinct prognostic profiles. Generically classifying adenocarcinomas at different sites as CRC might deprecate this diversity.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Reliable prediction of survival in advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: comparing 1D and 3D quantitative tumor response criteria on MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 1D and 3D quantitative tumor response criteria applied to DCE-MRI in patients with advanced-stage HCC undergoing sorafenib therapy to predict overall survival (OS) early during treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 29 patients with advanced-stage HCC who received sorafenib for at least 60 days. All patients underwent baseline and follow-up DCE-MRI at 81.5 ± 29.3 days (range 35-140 days). Response to sorafenib was assessed in 46 target lesions using 1D criteria RECIST1.1 and mRECIST. In addition, a segmentation-based 3D quantification of absolute enhancing lesion volume (vqEASL) was performed on the arterial phase MRI, and the enhancement fraction of total tumor volume (%qEASL) was calculated. Accordingly, patients were stratified into groups of disease control (DC) and disease progression (DP). OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that stratification of patients in DC vs. DP according to mRECIST (p = 0.0371) and vqEASL (p = 0.0118) successfully captured response and stratified OS, while stratification according to RECIST and %qEASL did not correlate with OS (p = 0.6273 and p = 0.7474, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression identified tumor progression according to mRECIST and qEASL as independent risk factors of decreased OS (p = 0.039 and p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The study identified enhancement-based vqEASL and mRECIST as reliable predictors of patient survival early after initiation of treatment with sorafenib. This data provides evidence for potential advantages 3D quantitative, enhancement-based tumor response analysis over conventional techniques regarding early identification of treatment success or failure. KEY POINTS: • Tumor response criteria on MRI can be used to predict survival benefit of sorafenib therapy in patients with advanced HCC. • Stratification into DC and DP using mRECIST and vqEASL significantly correlates with OS (p = 0.0371 and p = 0.0118, respectively) early after initiation of sorafenib, while stratification according to RECIST and %qEASL did not correlate with OS (p = 0.6273 and p = 0.7474, respectively). • mRECIST (HR = 0.325, p = 0.039. 95%CI 0.112-0.946) and qEASL (HR = 0.183, p = 0.006, 95%CI 0.055-0.613) are independent prognostic factors of survival in HCC patients undergoing sorafenib therapy.

Real-world association of HER2/ERBB2 concordance with trastuzumab clinical benefit in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Aim: To assess concordance between HER2 status measured by traditional methods and ERBB2 amplification measured by next-generation sequencing and its association with first-line trastuzumab clinical benefit in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. Methods: Retrospective analysis of HER2/ERBB2 concordance using a deidentified USA-based clinicogenomic database. Clinical outcomes were assessed for patients with HER2+ advanced esophagogastric cancer who received first-line trastuzumab. Results: Overall HER2/ERBB2 concordance was 87.5%. Among patients who received first-line trastuzumab, concordant HER2/ERBB2 was associated with longer time to treatment discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43-0.90) and overall survival (aHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33-0.79). ERBB2 copy number ≥25 (median) was associated with longer time to treatment discontinuation (aHR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35-0.88) and overall survival (aHR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.91). Conclusion: HER2/ERBB2 concordance and higher ERBB2 copy number predicted clinical benefit from trastuzumab.

Lay abstract Trastuzumab is a drug that has been shown to prolong survival in some patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer whose tumor expresses a protein biomarker called HER2. There are different methods for assessing whether a patient's tumor expresses HER2, including but not limited to traditional methods such as immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization and novel methods such as next-generation sequencing, which detects alterations in the gene (ERBB2) that encodes the HER2 protein. In our study, we assessed concordance between HER2 status (HER2-positive or HER2-negative) measured by traditional methods and ERBB2 amplification measured by next-generation sequencing, to determine whether there was an association between concordance and clinical benefit in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer treated with trastuzumab. Our results suggest that, when HER2 positivity is detected through traditional methods, both ERBB2 concordance (i.e., agreement that a patient's tumor had the biomarker) and a higher ERBB2 copy number (the amount of the ERBB2 gene expressed by the tumor) were associated with longer time to treatment discontinuation and overall survival in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer treated with first-line trastuzumab.

Atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (GO30140): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: Dual blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF has enhanced anticancer immunity through multiple mechanisms and augmented antitumour activity in multiple malignancies. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: GO30140 is an open-label, multicentre, multiarm, phase 1b study that enrolled patients at 26 academic centres and community oncology practices in seven countries worldwide. The study included five cohorts, and the two hepatocellular carcinoma cohorts, groups A and F, are described here. Inclusion criteria for these two groups included age 18 years and older; histologically, cytologically, or clinically (per American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria) confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that was not amenable to curative treatment; no previous systemic treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks. In group F, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification factors of geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline α-fetoprotein concentration. Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population in group F, both assessed by an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. In both groups, safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715531, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS: In group A, 104 patients were enrolled between July 20, 2016, and July 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 12·4 months (IQR 8·0-16·2), 37 (36%; 95% CI 26-46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (13 [13%]) and proteinuria (seven [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 25 (24%) patients and treatment-related deaths in three (3%) patients (abnormal hepatic function, hepatic cirrhosis, and pneumonitis). In group F, 119 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18, 2018, and March 7, 2019. With a median follow-up of 6·6 months (IQR 5·5-8·5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6·7 months (4·2-8·2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·6-7·4) versus 3·4 months (1·9-5·2; hazard ratio 0·55; 80% CI 0·40-0·74; p=0·011). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in group F were hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our study shows longer progression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not previously treated with systemic therapy. Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option for these patients. This combination is being compared with standard-of-care sorafenib in a phase 3 trial. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Direct-Acting Antivirals Improve Overall Survival in Interventional Oncology Patients with Hepatitis C and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and 12-week sustained virologic response (SVR12) in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by interventional oncology (IO) therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed from 2005 to 2016 with HCC and receiving IO therapies. A total of 478 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients were age 29-90 years (mean 63.6 ± 9.4 years) and 78.9% (n =3 77) male. Two hundred and eighty-five (57%) patients had chronic HCV, 93 (33%) received DAAs, and 63 (68%) achieved SVR12. Liver function, tumor characteristics, and IO therapy including ablation, image-guided transcatheter tumor therapies (ITTT) (eg, chemoembolization and radioembolization), and combination locoregional therapy were assessed in analysis. RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) of the cohort was 26.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.9-29.9). OS for ablation, combination locoregional therapy and ITTT, was 37.3 (CI 30.7-49.9), 29.3 (CI 24.2-38.0), and 19.7 months (CI 16.5-22.8), respectively (P < .0001). OS in patients with HCV was 30.7 months (CI 24.2-35.2) versus 22.2 months in non-HCV patients (CI 17.8-27.8, P = .03). Patients with HCV who received DAA had higher survival, 49.2 months (CI 36.5-not reached) versus those not receiving DAA, 18.5 months (CI 14.1-25.3, P < .0001). OS was 71.8 months (CI 42.3-not reached) for patients who achieved SVR12 after DAA versus 26.7 months in the non-SVR12 group (CI 15.9-31.1, P < .0001). Multivariable analysis revealed independent factors for OS including IO treatment type, DAA use and achieving SVR12 (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: DAA use and SVR12 is associated with higher OS in patients with HCV-related HCC treated by IO therapies.

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Socioeconomic Discrepancies, Contemporary Treatment Approaches and Survival Trends from the National Cancer Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate socioeconomic discrepancies in current treatment approaches and survival trends among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). METHODS: The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was retrospectively analyzed for histopathologically proven ICC. Treatment predictors were evaluated using multinomial logistic regression and overall survival via multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: Overall, 12,837 ICC patients were included. Multiple factors influenced treatment allocation, including age, education, comorbidities, cancer stage, grade, treatment center, and US state region (multivariable p < 0.05). The highest surgery rates were observed in the Middle Atlantic (28.7%) and lowest rates were observed in the Mountain States (18.4%). Decreased ICC treatment likelihood was observed for male African Americans with Medicaid insurance and those with low income (multivariable p < 0.05). Socioeconomic treatment discrepancies translated into decreased overall survival for patients of male sex (vs. female; hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.26, p < 0.001), with low income (< $37,999 vs. ≥ $63,000 annually; HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.032), and with Medicaid insurance (vs. private insurance; HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23, p = 0.006). Both surgical and non-surgical ICC management showed increased survival compared with no treatment, with the longest survival for surgery (5-year overall survival for surgery, 33.5%; interventional oncology, 11.8%; radiation oncology/chemotherapy, 4.4%; no treatment, 3.3%). Among non-surgically treated patients, interventional oncology yielded the longest survival versus radiation oncology/chemotherapy (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ICC treatment allocation and outcome demonstrated a marked variation depending on socioeconomic status, demography, cancer factors, and US geography. Healthcare providers should address these discrepancies by providing surgery and interventional oncology as first-line treatment to all eligible patients, with special attention to the vulnerable populations identified in this study.

Phase I study combining the aurora kinase a inhibitor alisertib with mFOLFOX in gastrointestinal cancer.

Overexpression and cellular mis-localization of aurora kinase A (AURKA) in gastrointestinal cancers results in chromosomal instability, activation of multiple oncogenic pathways, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic signaling. Inhibition of AURKA causes mitotic delays, severe chromosome congression, and activation of p53/p73 leading to cell death. Our preclinical data showed cooperative activity with the AURKA inhibitor alisertib and platinum agents in cell lines and xenografts, and suggested an optimal treatment window. Therefore, this study was designed to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of alisertib in combination with modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX), as this is a standard platinum-based therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. Standard 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, where the starting dose of alisertib was 10 mg twice daily (Days 1-3), with leucovorin (400 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) on Day 2 followed by continuous 46-h 5-FU (2400 mg/m2) infusion on Days 2-4 in 14-day cycles. Fourteen patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers were enrolled and two doses explored; two patients were not evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and replaced. Two patients experienced DLTs at 20 mg of alisertib (Grade 3 fatigue (n = 2); Grade 3 nausea, vomiting, dehydration with hospitalization (n = 1)). MTD was 10 mg alisertib with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin and 2400 mg/m2 5-FU. Most frequent toxicities were nausea (57%), diarrhea, fatigue, neuropathy, and vomiting (43%), and anorexia and anemia (36%); most were Grade 1-2. One patient with colorectal cancer had a partial response of 12 evaluable patients, and four patients had stable disease. Alisertib in combination with mFOLFOX did not demonstrate unexpected side effects, but the regimen was only tolerable at the lowest dose investigated.

Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and updated recommendations regarding systemic therapy for first-line and subsequent-line treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Radiofrequency ablation versus surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: contemporary treatment trends and outcomes from the United States National Cancer Database.

PURPOSE: To compare utilization and effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The 2004-2015 United States National Cancer Database was queried for HCC patients treated by RFA and surgical resection. Patients were 1:1 propensity score matched. Duration of hospital stay, unplanned readmission rates, and overall survival (OS) were compared in the matched cohort via multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Eighteen thousand two hundred ninety-six patients were included (RFA, n = 8211; surgical resection, n = 10,085). RFA was more likely in young male whites with high degree of hepatic fibrosis, high bilirubin levels, high INR, and multifocal HCC; resection was more likely in those with private insurance, high income, high cancer grade and stage, and larger HCC. RFA rates varied between 32.3% (East South Central) and 58.5% (New England). Post-treatment outcomes were superior for RFA versus resection regarding duration of hospital stay (median 1 vs. 5d, p < 0.001), 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rates (3.1% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), and 30-/90-day mortality (0% vs. 4.6%/8%, p < 0.001). Overall survival was comparable for RFA and resection for severe hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis (5-year OS 37.3% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.07), for patients > 65 years old (5-year OS 21.9% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.47), and for HCC < 15 mm (5-year OS 49.7% vs. 52.3%, p = 0.78). OS in the full cohort was superior for surgical resection (5-year OS 29.9% vs. 45.7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: RFA for HCC shows substantial variation by geography, socioeconomic factors, liver function, and tumor extent. RFA offers superior post-treatment outcomes versus surgical resection and may be an alternative for older patients with cirrhosis and/or small HCC. KEY POINTS: • Duration of hospital stay, unplanned readmissions, and 30-/90-day mortality are lower for RFA versus surgical resection. • RFA and surgical resection show similar survival in severe hepatic fibrosis. • In HCC < 15 mm, RFA and surgical resection yield similar survival.

Correction to: Phase I study combining the aurora kinase a inhibitor alisertib with mFOLFOX in gastrointestinal cancer.

The authors would like to note that the investigator affiliations have been corrected to reflect the actual affiliations of each author. The authors would also like to note an amendment to the first name of the second author. Nilo Azad was changed to reflect the full name of the author, which is Nilofer S. Azad as shown above. The original article has been corrected.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 1.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding locoregional therapy for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Patient preferences regarding incidental genomic findings discovered during tumor profiling.

BACKGROUND: During the process of tumor profiling, there is the potential to detect germline variants. To the authors' knowledge, there currently is no accepted standard of care for how to deal with these incidental findings. The goal of the current study was to assess disclosure preferences among patients with cancer regarding incidental genomic variants that may be discovered during tumor profiling. METHODS: A 45-item questionnaire was administered to 413 patients in ambulatory oncology clinics. The survey captured demographic and disease variables and personal and family history, and presented case scenarios for different types of incidental germline variants that could theoretically be detected during genomic analysis of a patient's tumor. RESULTS: The possibility of discovering non-cancer-related, germline variants did not deter patients from tumor profiling: 77% wanted to be informed concerning variants that could increase their risk of a serious but preventable illness, 56% wanted to know about variants that cause a serious but unpreventable illness, and 49% wanted to know about variants of uncertain significance. The majority of patients (75%) indicated they would share hereditary information regarding predisposition to preventable diseases with family and 62% would share information concerning unpreventable diseases. The most frequent concerns about incidental findings were ability to obtain health (48%) or life (41%) insurance. Only 21% of patients were concerned about privacy of information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer appear to prefer to receive information regarding incidental germline variants, but there is substantial variability with regard to what information patients wish to learn. The authors recommend that personal preferences for the disclosure of different types of incidental findings be clarified before a tumor profiling test is ordered. Cancer 2016;122:1588-97. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Final analysis of a phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Modifications of FOLFIRINOX are widely used despite the absence of prospective data validating efficacy in metastatic disease (metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC)) or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We conducted a multicentre phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer to assess the impact of dose attenuation in MPC and efficacy in LAPC. METHODS: Patients with untreated MPC or LAPC received modified FOLFIRINOX (irinotecan and bolus 5-fluorouracil reduced by 25%). Adverse events (AEs) were compared with full-dose FOLFIRINOX. Response rate (RR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were determined. RESULTS: In total, 31 and 44 patients with LAPC and MPC were enrolled, respectively. In MPC, efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX was comparable with FOLFIRINOX with RR 35.1%, OS 10.2 months (95% CI 7.65-14.32) and PFS 6.1 months (95% CI 5.19-8.31). In LAPC, efficacy was notable with RR 17.2%, resection rate 41.9%, PFS 17.8 months (95% CI 11.0-23.9) and OS 26.6 months (95% CI 16.7, NA). Neutropenia (P<0.0001), vomiting (P<0.001) and fatigue (P=0.01) were significantly decreased. [(18)F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging response did not correlate with PFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: In this first prospective study of modified FOLFIRINOX in MPC and LAPC, we observed decreased AEs compared with historical control patients. In MPC, the efficacy appears comparable with FOLFIRINOX. In LAPC, PFS and OS were prolonged and support the continued use of FOLFIRINOX in this setting.

Phase 2 trial of everolimus and carboplatin combination in patients with triple negative metastatic breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Rapamycin acts synergistically with platinum agents to induce apoptosis and inhibit proliferation in breast cancer cell lines. Combination of everolimus also known as RAD001 (oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor) and carboplatin may have activity in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to determine clinical benefit rate (CBR), that is (complete remission (CR) + partial remission (PR) + stable disease (SD) lasting ≥6 months) and the toxicity of everolimus/carboplatin in women with metastatic TNBC. Prior carboplatin was allowed. Treatment consisted of intravenous carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 6 (later decreased to AUC 5 and subsequently to AUC 4) every 3 weeks with daily 5 mg everolimus. RESULTS: We enrolled 25 patients in this study. Median age was 58 years. There were one CR, six PRs, seven SDs and eight PDs (progression of disease). CBR was 36% (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.1 to 57.4%). One SD was achieved in a patient progressing on single agent carboplatin. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% CI 1.6 to 4.6 months) and overall survival (OS) was 16.6 months (95% CI 7.3 months to not reached). There were seven patients (28%) with ≥ grade 3 thrombocytopenia; three (12%) with grade 3 neutropenia (no bleeding/febrile neutropenia) and one (4%) with grade 3 anemia. Greater hematological toxicity was seen in the first seven patients treated with carboplatin AUC5/6. After the amendment for starting dose of carboplatin to AUC 4, the regimen was well tolerated with only one out of 18 patients with grade 3 neutropenia and two patients with grade 3 thrombocytopenia. There was only one case of mucositis. CONCLUSION: Everolimus-carboplatin was efficacious in metastatic TNBC. Dose limiting hematological toxicity was observed when AUC5/6 of carboplatin was combined with everolimus. However, carboplatin AUC 4 was well tolerated in combination with everolimus with continuing responses. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01127763.