Sotorasib in KRAS p.G12C-Mutated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS p.G12C mutation occurs in approximately 1 to 2% of pancreatic cancers. The safety and efficacy of sotorasib, a KRAS G12C inhibitor, in previously treated patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated pancreatic cancer are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a single-group, phase 1-2 trial to assess the safety and efficacy of sotorasib treatment in patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated pancreatic cancer who had received at least one previous systemic therapy. The primary objective of phase 1 was to assess safety and to identify the recommended dose for phase 2. In phase 2, patients received sotorasib at a dose of 960 mg orally once daily. The primary end point for phase 2 was a centrally confirmed objective response (defined as a complete or partial response). Efficacy end points were assessed in the pooled population from both phases and included objective response, duration of response, time to objective response, disease control (defined as an objective response or stable disease), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The pooled population from phases 1 and 2 consisted of 38 patients, all of whom had metastatic disease at enrollment and had previously received chemotherapy. At baseline, patients had received a median of 2 lines (range, 1 to 8) of therapy previously. All 38 patients received sotorasib in the trial. A total of 8 patients had a centrally confirmed objective response (21%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10 to 37). The median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 5.6), and the median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 9.1). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade were reported in 16 patients (42%); 6 patients (16%) had grade 3 adverse events. No treatment-related adverse events were fatal or led to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Sotorasib showed anticancer activity and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer who had received previous treatment. (Funded by Amgen and others; CodeBreaK 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.).

Intratumoral Cell Neighborhoods Coordinate Outcomes in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a highly lethal disease characterized by a spatially heterogeneous tumor microenvironment. Within the PDA microenvironment, cells organize into communities where cell fate is influenced by neighboring cells of diverse ontogeny and function. However, it remains unclear how cell neighborhoods in the tumor microenvironment evolve with treatment and impact clinical outcomes. METHODS: Here, using automated chromogenic multiplex immunohistochemistry and unsupervised computational image analysis of human PDA tumors, we investigated cell neighborhoods in surgically resected tumors from patients with chemotherapy-naïve PDA (n = 59) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy-treated PDA (n = 57). Single cells were defined by lineage markers (CD3, CD8, Foxp3, CD68, CK19), proliferation (Ki67), and neighboring cells. RESULTS: Distinct intratumoral immune and tumor cell subsets were defined by neighboring cells. Higher content of stromal-associated macrophages was seen in chemotherapy-naïve tumors from long-term survivors (overall survival >3 years) compared with short-term survivors (overall survival <1 year), whereas immune-excluded tumor cells were higher in short-term survivors. Chemotherapy-treated vs -naïve tumors showed lower content of tumor-associated T cells and macrophages but similar densities of stromal-associated immune cells. However, proliferating tumor cell subsets with immune-rich neighborhoods were higher in chemotherapy-treated tumors. In a blinded analysis of tumors from patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a composite index comprising lower quantities of immune-excluded tumor cells and higher spatially distinct immune cell subsets was associated with prolonged survival. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these data provide new insights into discrete cell communities in PDA and show their clinical relevance.

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.

Phase 1 study of GSK3368715, a type I PRMT inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: GSK3368715, a first-in-class, reversible inhibitor of type I protein methyltransferases (PRMTs) demonstrated anticancer activity in preclinical studies. This Phase 1 study (NCT03666988) evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of GSK3368715 in adults with advanced-stage solid tumors. METHODS: In part 1, escalating doses of oral once-daily GSK3368715 (50, 100, and 200 mg) were evaluated. Enrollment was paused at 200 mg following a higher-than-expected incidence of thromboembolic events (TEEs) among the first 19 participants, resuming under a protocol amendment starting at 100 mg. Part 2 (to evaluate preliminary efficacy) was not initiated. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in 3/12 (25%) patients at 200 mg. Nine of 31 (29%) patients across dose groups experienced 12 TEEs (8 grade 3 events and 1 grade 5 pulmonary embolism). Best response achieved was stable disease, occurring in 9/31 (29%) patients. Following single and repeat dosing, GSK3368715 maximum plasma concentration was reached within 1 h post dosing. Target engagement was observed in the blood, but was modest and variable in tumor biopsies at 100 mg. CONCLUSION: Based on higher-than-expected incidence of TEEs, limited target engagement at lower doses, and lack of observed clinical efficacy, a risk/benefit analysis led to early study termination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03666988.

A Real-World Comparison of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) and regorafenib are FDA-approved in the United States for treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FDA approvals of these agents were based on modest improvements in overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care + placebo in the RECOURSE and CORRECT trials, respectively. This study compared real-world clinical outcomes with the use of these agents. METHODS: A nationwide deidentified electronic health record-derived database was reviewed for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2015 and 2020. Patients who received at least 2 lines of standard systemic therapy followed by treatment with either TAS-102 or regorafenib were included for analysis. Kaplan-Meier and propensity score-weighted proportional hazards models were used to compare survival outcomes between groups. RESULTS: The records of 22,078 patients with mCRC were reviewed. Of these, 1,937 patients received at least 2 lines of standard therapy followed by regorafenib and/or TAS-102. Median OS for the TAS-102 alone or prior regorafenib group (n=1,016) was 6.66 months (95% CI, 6.16-7.18 months) compared with 6.30 months (95% CI, 5.80-6.79 months) for regorafenib alone or prior to TAS-102 (n=921; P=.36). A propensity score-weighted analysis controlling for potential confounders did not demonstrate a significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09; P=.82). A subgroup analysis did not identify any significant differences in outcomes regarding age, performance status, tumor sidedness, microsatellite instability status, or RAS/RAF status. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of real-world data found that OS was similar for patients with mCRC who were treated with TAS-102 compared with regorafenib. Median OS with both agents in a real-world setting was similar to that shown in the clinical trials that led to their approvals. A prospective trial comparing TAS-102 and regorafenib would unlikely change current management of patients with refractory mCRC.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Epacadostat Plus Pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy for Advanced Solid Tumors: Results from the Phase I/II ECHO-207/KEYNOTE-723 Study.

BACKGROUND: Epacadostat, an oral, selective inhibitor of IDO1, has shown activity when administered with pembrolizumab. We evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to epacadostat and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. One proposed mechanism of resistance to PD-1 checkpoint inhibition is through immunosuppression mediated by L-kynurenine. IDO1, indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 is the rate-limiting enzyme catalyzing the conversion of L-tryptophan to L-kynurenine. If IDO1 is a mechanism of tumor escape from checkpoint inhibition, then addition of an IDO1 inhibitor with a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor could enable tumor response to immunotherapy. METHODS: Patients received one of 7 tumor-appropriate chemotherapy regimens. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was infused intravenously every 3 weeks. Epacadostat 100 mg was administered orally twice daily. The primary objectives of phase I were determining safety/tolerability and defining the maximum tolerated or pharmacologically active dose of epacadostat. Phase II of the study was designed to enroll efficacy-expansion cohorts and to assess changes in the tumor and tumor microenvironment via mandatory-biopsy cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were enrolled. Twelve patients were enrolled in the phase II mandatory-biopsy cohorts. Due to early study closure, efficacy expansion did not enroll. Grades 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 78.6% of patients. Neutropenia and disease progression were the only grades 3 and 4 TEAEs reported in ≥10.0% of patients. One treatment-related death was reported. The ORR was 31.4% across all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of epacadostat 100 mg bid with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy had an acceptable safety profile. This regimen showed antitumor activity across multiple types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03085914).

Treatment outcomes in recurrent versus de novo metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real world study.

BACKGROUND: A majority of patients undergoing curative intent surgery for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will unfortunately develop recurrent disease. Treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic disease remain suboptimal. In this study, we evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent PDAC who received systemic therapy and compared outcomes to patients with de novo metastatic PDAC undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic PDAC between 2014 and 2019 were included using a real-world database. Patients were characterized as either de novo or recurrent based on the date of metastatic diagnosis and history of surgical resection. Overall survival (OS) was summarized within groups via Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and compared using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We included 5170 patients with metastatic PDAC, of which 1101 (21.3%) were classified as having recurrent disease. Median OS for the recurrent group was significantly greater at 10.8 m (95% CI 9.9-11.7) than in the de novo group at 7.3 m (95% CI 7.0-7.7, p < 0.001). We did not observe a significant difference in OS based on when patients recurred after surgery: 10.0 m (95% CI 8.7-11) within six months of surgery versus 11.6 m (95% CI 10-12, p = 0.256) greater than six months from surgery. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the inclusion of patients with recurrent PDAC in clinical trials for advanced disease, including those who develop recurrent disease within six months of surgery. Due to observed differences in survival, randomization should be stratified by disease presentation (recurrent vs de novo).

Treatment Trends and Clinical Outcomes of Left-Sided RAS/RAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analysis of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial suggests that anti-EGFR therapy may be superior to bevacizumab when added to first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have left-sided primary tumors. We evaluated trends in use of anti-EGFR agents in patients with left-sided RAS/RAF wild-type (WT) mCRC and compared clinical outcomes among the most commonly used treatment strategies. METHODS: A nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database was reviewed for patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC. Treatment trends over time were assessed by fitting a linear model to the percentage of patients receiving anti-EGFR therapy. A propensity score weighted Cox model was used to compare overall survival (OS) stratified by first-line targeted therapy received. RESULTS: A total of 1,607 patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC received standard first-line chemotherapy. Of these, 965 (60%) received bevacizumab and 186 (12%) received an anti-EGFR agent. The percentage of patients receiving an anti-EGFR increased from 9% in 2013 to 16% in 2018. Median OS for patients treated with chemotherapy alone was 27.3 months (95% CI, 24.8-32.3), 27.5 months with bevacizumab (95% CI, 25.8-28.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P=.33), and 42.9 months with an anti-EGFR agent (95% CI, 36.0 to not reached; HR, 0.52; P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that chemotherapy with bevacizumab remained the most widely used first-line treatment strategy for patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC in the United States in 2018. Despite this preference, treatment with an anti-EGFR agent was associated with improved OS.

Real-World Outcomes of Patients With BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated in the United States.

BACKGROUND: BRAF mutations portend a poor prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Whether these patients may benefit from more aggressive frontline chemotherapy with a triplet regimen such as FOLFOXIRI remains unclear. We used real-world data from a cohort of patients in the United States to assess the BRAF testing rate, determine the prevalence of FOLFOXIRI use, and compare survival outcomes in mCRC, stratified by BRAF mutation status and first-line therapy. METHODS: A nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database was reviewed for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2013 and 2018. Those with documented BRAF mutation testing who received standard first-line therapy were included. Kaplan-Meier estimates with corresponding log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling compared survival outcomes stratified by BRAF status and first-line therapy. RESULTS: Of 4,457 included patients, 3,991 (89.5%) had BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) and 466 (10.5%) had BRAF-mutated (BRAFmt) mCRC. Median overall survival (OS) was 15.4 months in the BRAFmt group versus 28.1 months in the BRAFwt group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41-0.56; P<.001). Only 3% of patients with BRAF mutations received first-line FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab, with a median OS of 13.8 months compared with 15.5 months in those treated with doublet chemotherapy ± bevacizumab (P=.38). In patients with BRAF mutations, propensity-weighted analysis did not detect a significant improvement in OS with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.58-1.39; P=.63) or FOLFOX/CAPEOX + bevacizumab (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26; P=.35) versus doublet chemotherapy alone. In 2018, only 56% of patients diagnosed with mCRC had documented BRAF testing at any time. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world data analysis confirms the negative prognostic impact of BRAF mutations in mCRC and suggests that FOLFOXIRI has not been widely adopted in the United States. The proportion of patients with documented BRAF testing in this real-world population was low at 56%. We were unable to show any significant difference in OS of patients with BRAFmt mCRC based on the first-line therapy received.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Clinical Development of Anti-TIGIT Antibodies for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: T-cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (TIGIT) is a next-generation inhibitory receptor with multiple antibodies under exploration in cancer therapy. Here, we review the available data from the early trials and overview upcoming clinical trials on anti-TIGIT antibodies. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a promising activity of anti-TIGIT, particularly in combination with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with already phase 3 trials currently ongoing to confirm these early findings. Numerous anti-TIGIT antibodies are in clinical trials currently, and others are in preclinical development. Therefore, more data are expected in the next few years regarding the efficacy of this new checkpoint inhibitor in multiple solid and hematologic malignancies. However, preliminary data are promising, and anti-TIGIT treatment seems to confer more favorable responses when combined with anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 compared to either agent alone.

A Phase I, First-in-Human Study of GSK2849330, an Anti-HER3 Monoclonal Antibody, in HER3-Expressing Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND: GSK2849330, an anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody that blocks HER3/Neuregulin 1 (NRG1) signaling in cancer cells, is engineered for enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. This phase I, first-in-human, open-label study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of GSK2849330 in patients with HER3-expressing advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with various tumor types were prospectively selected for HER3 expression by immunohistochemistry; a subset was also screened for NRG1 mRNA expression. In the dose-escalation phase, patients received GSK2849330 1.4-30 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 3 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg weekly, intravenously (IV). In the dose-expansion phase, patients received 30 mg/kg GSK2849330 IV weekly. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with HER3-expressing cancers, of whom two expressed NRG1, received GSK2849330 (dose escalation: n = 18, dose expansion: n = 11). GSK2849330 was well tolerated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The highest dose, of 30 mg/kg weekly, expected to provide full target engagement, was selected for dose expansion. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were mostly grade 1 or 2. The most common AEs were diarrhea (66%), fatigue (62%), and decreased appetite (31%). Dose-proportional plasma exposures were achieved, with evidence of HER3 inhibition in paired tissue biopsies. Of 29 patients, only 1 confirmed partial response, lasting 19 months, was noted in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). CONCLUSION: GSK2849330 demonstrated a favorable safety profile, dose-proportional PK, and evidence of target engagement, but limited antitumor activity in HER3-expressing cancers. The exceptional response seen in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged NSCLC suggests further exploration in NRG1-fusion-positive cancers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This first-in-human study confirms that GSK2849330 is well tolerated. Importantly, across a variety of HER3-expressing advanced tumors, prospective selection by HER3/NRG1 expression alone was insufficient to identify patients who could benefit from treatment with this antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity- and complement-dependent cytotoxicity-enhanced anti-HER3 antibody. The only confirmed durable response achieved was in a patient with CD74-NRG1-rearranged lung cancer. This highlights the potential utility of screening for NRG1 fusions prospectively across tumor types to enrich potential responders to anti-HER3 agents in ongoing trials.

Refusal of Local Therapy in Esophageal Cancer and Impact on Overall Survival.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand factors associated with refusal of local therapy in esophageal cancer and compare the overall survival (OS) of patients who refuse therapies with those who undergo recommended treatment. METHODS: National Cancer Database data for patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer from 2006 to 2013 were pooled. T1N0M0 tumors were excluded. Pearson's Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess demographic, clinical, and treatment factors. After propensity-score matching with inverse probability of treatment weighting, OS was compared between patients who refused therapies and those who underwent recommended therapy, using Kaplan-Meier analyses and doubly robust estimation with multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: In total, 37,618 patients were recommended radiation therapy (RT) and/or esophagectomy; we found 1403 (3.7%) refused local therapies. Specifically, 890 of 18,942 (4.6%) patients refused surgery and 667 of 31,937 (2.1%) refused RT. Older patients, females, those with unknown lymphovascular space invasion, and those uninsured or on Medicare were more likely to refuse. Those with squamous cell carcinoma, N1 disease, higher incomes, living farther from care, and those who received chemotherapy were less likely to refuse. Five-year OS was decreased in patients who refused (18.1% vs. 27.6%). The survival decrement was present in adenocarcinoma but not squamous cell carcinoma. In patients who received surgery or ≥ 50.4 Gy RT, there was no OS decrement to refusing the other therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We identified characteristics that correlate with refusal of local therapy. Refusal of therapy was associated with decreased OS. Patients who received either surgery or ≥ 50.4 Gy RT had no survival decrement from refusing the opposite modality.

Clinical Activity of Selitrectinib in a Patient With Mammary Analogue Secretory Carcinoma of the Parotid Gland With Secondary Resistance to Entrectinib.

NTRK gene fusions are found in <1% of all cancers but are uniformly present in mammary analog secretory carcinomas (MASC) of the salivary glands. Two selective histology-agnostic tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors are currently approved for malignancies with these oncogenic fusions. Resistance to TRK inhibition has been recognized, and the mediating mechanisms are presently being studied. This report describes a patient diagnosed with an MASC of the parotid gland who after undergoing multiple lines of treatment was found to have an ETV6-NTRK3 fusion and initiated TRK-targeted therapy using entrectinib. Upon disease progression, we performed tumor genetic sequencing that showed a secondary resistance mutation. The patient subsequently responded to selitrectinib, a next-generation TRK inhibitor.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Entrectinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours: integrated analysis of three phase 1-2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Entrectinib is a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, which has been shown to have anti-tumour activity against NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumours, including CNS activity due to its ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. We present an integrated efficacy and safety analysis of patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours harbouring oncogenic NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 gene fusions treated in three ongoing, early-phase trials. METHODS: An integrated database comprised the pivotal datasets of three, ongoing phase 1 or 2 clinical trials (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2), which enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or locally advanced NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who received entrectinib orally at a dose of at least 600 mg once per day in a capsule. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and could have received previous anti-cancer therapy (except previous TRK inhibitors). The primary endpoints, the proportion of patients with an objective response and median duration of response, were evaluated by blinded independent central review in the efficacy-evaluable population (ie, patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who were TRK inhibitor-naive and had received at least one dose of entrectinib). Overall safety evaluable population included patients from STARTRK-1, STARTRK-2, ALKA-372-001, and STARTRK-NG (NCT02650401; treating young adult and paediatric patients [aged ≤21 years]), who received at least one dose of entrectinib, regardless of tumour type or gene rearrangement. NTRK fusion-positive safety evaluable population comprised all patients who have received at least one dose of entrectinib regardless of dose or follow-up. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012-000148-88 (ALKA-372-001). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372-001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018) the efficacy-evaluable population comprised 54 adults with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours comprising ten different tumour types and 19 different histologies. Median follow-up was 12.9 months (IQR 8·77-18·76). 31 (57%; 95% CI 43·2-70·8) of 54 patients had an objective response, of which four (7%) were complete responses and 27 (50%) partial reponses. Median duration of response was 10 months (95% CI 7·1 to not estimable). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in both safety populations were increased weight (seven [10%] of 68 patients in the NTRK fusion-positive safety population and in 18 [5%] of 355 patients in the overall safety-evaluable population) and anaemia (8 [12%] and 16 [5%]). The most common serious treatment-related adverse events were nervous system disorders (three [4%] of 68 patients and ten [3%] of 355 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Entrectinib induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours, and was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. These results show that entrectinib is a safe and active treatment option for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. These data highlight the need to routinely test for NTRK fusions to broaden the therapeutic options available for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. FUNDING: Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 6.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E- or HER2 amplification-positive disease.

First-in-human, phase I study of PF-06647263, an anti-EFNA4 calicheamicin antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PF-06647263, a novel antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti-EFNA4 antibody linked to a calicheamicin payload, has shown potent antitumor activity in human xenograft tumor models, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In the dose-escalation part 1 of this multicenter, open-label, phase I study (NCT02078752), successive cohorts of patients (n, 48) with advanced solid tumors and no available standard therapy received PF-06647263 every 3 weeks (Q3W) or every week (QW), following a modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) method (initial dosing: 0.015 mg/kg Q3W). Primary objective in part 1 was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and select the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). In part 2 (dose-expansion cohort), 12 patients with pretreated, metastatic TNBC received PF-06647263 at the RP2D to further evaluate tumor response and overall safety. PF-06647263 QW administration (n, 23) was better tolerated than the Q3W regimen (n, 25) with only 1 DLT reported (thrombocytopenia). The most common AEs with the QW regimen (fatigue, nausea, vomiting, mucosal inflammation, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea) were mostly mild to moderate in severity. The MTD was not estimated. PF-06647263 exposures increased in a dose-related manner across the doses evaluated. The RP2D was determined to be 0.015 mg/kg QW. Six (10%) patients achieved a confirmed partial response and 22 (36.7%) patients had stable disease. No correlations were observed between tumor responses and EFNA4 expression levels. Study findings showed manageable safety and favorable PK for PF-06647263 administered QW at the RP2D, with preliminary evidence of limited antitumor activity in patients with TNBC and ovarian cancer.