NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The determination of an optimal treatment plan for an individual patient with rectal cancer is a complex process. In addition to decisions relating to the intent of rectal cancer surgery (ie, curative or palliative), consideration must also be given to the likely functional results of treatment, including the probability of maintaining or restoring normal bowel function/anal continence and preserving genitourinary functions. Particularly for patients with distal rectal cancer, finding a balance between curative-intent therapy while having minimal impact on quality of life can be challenging. Furthermore, the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer, and locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Careful patient selection and the use of sequenced multimodality therapy following a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, including the addition of endoscopic submucosal dissection as an option for early-stage rectal cancer, updates to the total neoadjuvant therapy approach based on the results of recent clinical trials, and the addition of a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management approach for clinical complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy.

Colon Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Are We There Yet? - Alternating Chemotherapy Regimens in Pancreatic Cancer.

In the randomized phase 2 SEQUENCE trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, reported in this issue of NEJM Evidence, the authors compared therapy with alternating FOLFOX and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine chemotherapy versus standard-of-care, single-regimen nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine therapy.1 They were testing the idea that because most tumor cells express both basal and classic markers, alternating treatment would target both cell populations and thus confer a survival benefit. The trial, which enrolled 157 patients, met the primary end point of an overall survival rate at 12 months of 55.3% in the alternating treatment group compared with 35.4% in the standard-of-care group.

An update on pharmacotherapies for colorectal cancer: 2023 and beyond.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers worldwide. The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is difficult, and mCRC has a survival rate of only 13-17% compared with 70-90% in locoregional CRC. There is ongoing research effort on pharmacotherapy for CRC to improve the treatment outcome. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the current literature and ongoing clinical trials on CRC pharmacotherapy, with a focus on targeted therapy based on the results of genetic testing. The pharmacotherapies covered in this article include novel agents targeting EGFR and EGFR-related pathways, agents targeting the VEGF pathway, immunotherapy options depending on the MMR/MSI status, and new therapies targeting genetic fusions such as NTRK. We also briefly discuss the value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in treatment selection and response monitoring. EXPERT OPINION: We advocate for the early and routine use of NGS to genetically characterize CRC to assist with pharmacotherapy selection. Targeted therapy is a promising field of ongoing research and improves CRC treatment outcome.

Concurrent Tissue and Circulating Tumor DNA Molecular Profiling to Detect Guideline-Based Targeted Mutations in a Multicancer Cohort.

Importance: Tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors is the criterion standard for identifying somatic mutations that can be treated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-recommended targeted therapies. Sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can also identify tumor-derived mutations, and there is increasing clinical evidence supporting ctDNA testing as a diagnostic tool. The clinical value of concurrent tissue and ctDNA profiling has not been formally assessed in a large, multicancer cohort from heterogeneous clinical settings. Objective: To evaluate whether patients concurrently tested with both tissue and ctDNA NGS testing have a higher rate of detection of guideline-based targeted mutations compared with tissue testing alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 3209 patients who underwent sequencing between May 2020, and December 2022, within the deidentified, Tempus multimodal database, consisting of linked molecular and clinical data. Included patients had stage IV disease (non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer) with sufficient tissue and blood sample quantities for analysis. Exposures: Received results from tissue and plasma ctDNA genomic profiling, with biopsies and blood draws occurring within 30 days of one another. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection rates of guideline-based variants found uniquely by ctDNA and tissue profiling. Results: The cohort of 3209 patients (median age at diagnosis of stage IV disease, 65.3 years [2.5%-97.5% range, 43.3-83.3 years]) who underwent concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing included 1693 women (52.8%). Overall, 1448 patients (45.1%) had a guideline-based variant detected. Of these patients, 9.3% (135 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by ctDNA profiling, and 24.2% (351 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by solid-tissue testing. Although largely concordant with one another, differences in the identification of actionable variants by either assay varied according to cancer type, gene, variant, and ctDNA burden. Of 352 patients with breast cancer, 20.2% (71 of 352) with actionable variants had unique findings in ctDNA profiling results. Most of these unique, actionable variants (55.0% [55 of 100]) were found in ESR1, resulting in a 24.7% increase (23 of 93) in the identification of patients harboring an ESR1 mutation relative to tissue testing alone. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that unique actionable biomarkers are detected by both concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing, with higher ctDNA identification among patients with breast cancer. Integration of concurrent NGS testing into the routine management of advanced solid cancers may expand the delivery of molecularly guided therapy and improve patient outcomes.

Combining anti-VEGFR and anti-EGFR antibodies: Randomized phase II study of irinotecan and cetuximab with/without ramucirumab in second-line colorectal cancer:(ECOG-ACRIN E7208).

INTRODUCTION: Early studies showed promise of combined anti-EGFR plus anti-VEGF antibodies for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), yet this was later rejected as toxic and ineffective in studies not selected for RAS status. We studied advanced KRAS wild-type CRC, as second-line treatment, using irinotecan-cetuximab (IC) with or without the anti-VEGFR antibody, ramucirumab (ICR). METHODS: Patients with one prior regimen including fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab, with KRAS wild-type tumors, were stratified by ECOG PS, time since last chemotherapy and progression on oxaliplatin, to IC (180 and 500 mg/2 q2w), vs modified ICR (mICR) (150 and 400 mg/m2 plus 6 mg/kg respectively). 102 patients were compared for progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoint (85% power for 70% improvement in median PFS from 4.5 to 7.65 months). RESULTS: Of the 102 enrolled, 44 treated with IC and 45 with mICR were evaluable. Median PFS was 6.0 vs 9.2 months respectively (HR 0.75, p = .07, significant by study design for p < .128). Response rate was 23% vs 36% (p = .27) and disease-control rate (DCR) was 52% vs 73% (p = .05). Grade ≥3 toxicity was not equivalent. Overall survival was not significantly different at ∼19 months. CONCLUSION: Previous phase 3 trials without RAS genotyping, rejected combining anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF drugs. In this randomized multi-center phase 2 study for KRAS wild type CRC (all previously bevacizumab-treated) the addition of ramucirumab, to irinotecan and cetuximab improved PFS and DCR, showing the combination is feasible and effective here. Further phase 3 trials with appropriate patient-selection are required. (NCT01079780).

Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

PURPOSE: Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS: The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS: A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION: Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

A Cohort Study to Evaluate Genetic Predictors of Aromatase Inhibitor Musculoskeletal Symptoms: Results from ECOG-ACRIN E1Z11.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) are common and frequently lead to AI discontinuation. SNPs in candidate genes have been associated with AIMSS and AI discontinuation. E1Z11 is a prospective cohort study designed to validate the association between 10 SNPs and AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer received anastrozole 1 mg daily and completed patient-reported outcome measures to assess AIMSS (Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. We estimated that 40% of participants would develop AIMSS and 25% would discontinue AI treatment within 12 months. Enrollment of 1,000 women with a fixed number per racial stratum provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.5 to 4. SNPs were found in ESR1 (rs2234693, rs2347868, and rs9340835), CYP19A1 (rs1062033 and rs4646), TCL1A (rs11849538, rs2369049, rs7158782, and rs7159713), and HTR2A (rs2296972). RESULTS: Of the 970 evaluable women, 43% developed AIMSS and 12% discontinued AI therapy within 12 months. Although more Black and Asian women developed AIMSS than White women (49% vs. 39%, P = 0.017; 50% vs. 39%, P = 0.004, respectively), the AI discontinuation rates were similar across groups. None of the SNPs were significantly associated with AIMSS or AI discontinuation in the overall population or in distinct cohorts. The OR for rs2296972 (HTR2A) approached significance for developing AIMSS. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prospectively validate candidate SNPs previously associated with AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. Future analyses will explore additional genetic markers, patient-reported outcome predictors of AIMSS, and differences by race.

Devimistat (CPI-613) With Modified Fluorouarcil, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan, and Leucovorin (FFX) Versus FFX for Patients With Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas: The Phase III AVENGER 500 Study.

PURPOSE: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC) remains a difficult-to-treat disease. Fluorouarcil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin (FFX) is a standard first-line therapy for mPC for patients with a favorable performance status and good organ function. In a phase I study, devimistat (CPI-613) in combination with modified FFX (mFFX) was deemed safe and exhibited promising efficacy in mPC. METHODS: The AVENGER 500 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504423) is a global, randomized phase III trial conducted at 74 sites across six countries to investigate the efficacy and safety of devimistat in combination with mFFX (experimental arm) compared with standard-dose FFX (control arm) in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment, administered in once-every-2-weeks cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, included intravenous devimistat at 500 mg/m2 total per day on days 1 and 3 in the experimental arm. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned (266 in the experimental arm and 262 in the control arm). The median OS was 11.10 months for devimistat plus mFFX versus 11.73 months for FFX (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18]; P = .655) and median progression-free survival was 7.8 months versus 8.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]; P = .94). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events with >10% frequency in the devimistat plus mFFX arm versus the FFX arm were neutropenia (29.0% v 34.5%), diarrhea (11.2% v 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% v 14.9%), anemia (13.9% v 13.6%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% v 13.6%), and fatigue (10.8% v 11.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Devimistat in combination with mFFX did not improve long- and short-term mPC patient outcomes compared with standard FFX. There were no new toxicity signals with the addition of devimistat.