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.

Lateral Pelvic Nodal Management and Patterns of Failure in Patients Receiving Short-Course Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in locally advanced rectal cancer is controversial, with limited data indicating the optimal approach. In addition, no data exist regarding the treatment of lateral nodes in the setting of short-course radiation and nonoperative intent. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a novel approach incorporating simultaneous integrated boost to suspicious lateral nodes. DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a large tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients treated with radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy were included. All primary tumors underwent biopsy confirmation and disease staging with pelvic MRI. INTERVENTIONS: Primary tumors were biopsy proven and staged with pelvic MRI. A subset of lateral pelvic lymph node patients received a simultaneous integrated boost of 35 Gy in 5 fractions. Then, chemotherapy was administered, with the majority receiving modified folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. Clinical partial response required total mesorectal excision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patterns of failure and survival analyses by subgroup were assessed. Outcomes based on receipt of radiation were compared across node status. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and January 2022, 155 patients were treated with short-course chemotherapy, with 121 included in the final analysis. Forty-nine percent of patients underwent nonoperative management. The median follow-up was 36 months and the median age was 58 years. Thirty-eight patients (26%) had positive lateral pelvic lymph nodes. Comparing lateral node status, progression-free survival was significantly worse for patients with positive disease ( p < 0.001), with a trend for worse overall survival. Receipt of nodal boost in patients with lateral nodes resulted in meaningful locoregional control. Nodal boost did not contribute to additional acute or late GI toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of lateral node pathology; however, a thorough radiographic review was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral node-positive rectal cancer is correlated with worse oncologic outcomes and higher locoregional failure. Boost to clinically positive lateral nodes is a safe approach in the setting of short course radiation and in those receiving nonoperative intent. See Video Abstract. MANEJO DE LOS GANGLIOS PLVICOS LATERALES Y PATRONES DE FALLA EN PACIENTES QUE RECIBEN RADIACIN DE CICLO CORTO PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO LOCALMENTE AVANZADO: ANTECEDENTES:El manejo de los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales en el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado es controvertido, con datos limitados que indiquen el abordaje óptimo. Además, no existen datos sobre el tratamiento de los ganglios linfáticos laterales en el contexto de la radiación de curso corto y la intención no operatoria.OBJETIVO:Evaluamos un enfoque novedoso que incorpora sobreimpresión integrada simultánea (SIB) a los linfonodos laterales sospechosos.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó en un gran centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes tratados con radiación y quimioterapia de consolidación. Todos los tumores primarios se confirmaron mediante biopsia y la enfermedad se estadificó con resonancia magnética pélvica.INTERVENCIONES:Los tumores primarios se confirmaron mediante biopsia y se estadificaron con RM pélvica. Un subconjunto de pacientes con linfonodos pélvicos laterales (LPLN) recibió SIB a 35 Gy en 5 fracciones. Luego, se administró quimioterapia y la mayoría recibió mFOLFOX. La respuesta clínica parcial requirió la escisión total del mesorrecto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron los patrones de fracaso y los análisis de supervivencia por subgrupo. Los resultados basados en el esquema de radiación se compararon según el estado de los ganglios.RESULTADOS:Entre enero de 2017 y enero de 2022, 155 pacientes fueron tratados con ciclo corto y quimioterapia con 121 incluidos en el análisis final. El 49% se sometió a manejo no operatorio. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 36 meses y la mediana de edad fue de 58 años. 38 pacientes (26%) tuvieron LPLN positivos. Comparando el estado de los ganglios laterales, la supervivencia libre de progresión fue significativamente peor para los pacientes con LPLN positiva ( p < 0,001) con una tendencia a una peor supervivencia global. La recepción de refuerzo nodal en pacientes con nodos laterales dio como resultado un control locorregional significativo. La sobreimpresión ganglionar no contribuyó a la toxicidad GI aguda o tardía adicional.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones incluyeron la naturaleza retrospectiva y la falta de patología de los ganglios linfáticos laterales; sin embargo, se realizó una revisión radiográfica exhaustiva.CONCLUSIONES:El cáncer de recto con ganglio lateral positivo se correlaciona con peores resultados oncológicos y mayor fracaso locorregional. La sobreimpresión a los ganglios laterales clínicamente positivos es un enfoque seguro en el contexto de un curso corto y en aquellos que siguen un manejo no operatorio. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Phase Ib Study of Ulixertinib Plus Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Ulixertinib is a novel oral ERK inhibitor that has shown promising single-agent activity in a phase I clinical trial that included patients with RAS-mutant cancers. METHODS: We conducted a phase Ib trial combining ulixertinib with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP) for untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The trial comprised a dose de-escalation part and a cohort expansion part at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Primary endpoint was to determine the RP2D of ulixertinib plus GnP and secondary endpoints were to assess toxicity and safety profile, biochemical and radiographic response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. Ulixertinib 600 mg PO twice daily (BID) with GnP was initially administered but was de-escalated to 450 mg BID as RP2D early during dose expansion due to poor tolerability, which ultimately led to premature termination of the study. Common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were anemia, thrombocytopenia, rash and diarrhea. For 5 response evaluable patients, one patient achieved a partial response and 2 patients achieved stable disease. For 15 patients who received the triplet, median PFS and OS were 5.46 and 12.23 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Ulixertinib plus GnP had similar frequency of grade ≥3 TRAEs and potentially efficacy as GnP, however was complicated by a high rate of all-grade TRAEs (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02608229).

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.

Circumferential Resection Margin as Predictor of Nonclinical Complete Response in Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent has emerged as a novel treatment paradigm for patients with rectal cancer, but there are no data on the predictors of clinical complete response. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the predictors of clinical complete response and survival. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTINGS: National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: Patients with stage I to III rectal adenocarcinoma treated between January 2018 and May 2019 (n = 86). INTERVENTIONS: Short-course radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was performed to assess for predictors of clinical complete response. The end points included local regrowth-free survival, regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A positive (+) circumferential resection margin by MRI at diagnosis was a significant predictor of nonclinical complete response (OR: 4.1, p = 0.009) when adjusting for CEA level and primary tumor size. Compared to patients with a negative (-) pathologic circumferential resection margin, patients with a positive (+) pathologic circumferential resection margin had inferior local regrowth-free survival (29% vs 87%, p < 0.001), regional control (57% vs 94%, p < 0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (43% vs 95%, p < 0.001), and overall survival (86% vs 95%, p < 0.001) at 2 years. However, the (+) and (-) circumferential resection margin by MRI subgroups in patients who had a clinical complete response both had similar regional control, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival of more than 90% at 2 years. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, modest sample size, short follow-up, and the heterogeneity of treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential resection margin involvement by MRI at diagnosis is a strong predictor of nonclinical complete response. However, patients who achieve a clinical complete response after short-course radiation therapy and consolidation chemotherapy with nonoperative intent have excellent clinical outcomes regardless of the initial circumferential resection margin status. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . EL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL COMO PREDICTOR NO CLNICO DE RESPUESTA COMPLETA EN EL MANEJO CONSERVADOR DEL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:La radioterapia de corta duración y la quimioterapia de consolidación en el manejo conservador, han surgido como un nuevo paradigma de tratamiento, para los pacientes con cáncer de recto, lastimosamente no hay datos definitivos sobre los predictores de una respuesta clínica completa.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa y de la sobrevida.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTES:Centro oncológico designado por el NCI.PACIENTES:Adenocarcinomas de recto estadio I-III tratados entre 01/2018 y 05/2019 (n = 86).INTERVENCIONES:Radioterapia de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó una regresión logística para evaluar los predictores de respuesta clínica completa. Los criterios de valoración incluyeron la sobrevida libre de recidiva local, el control regional, la sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y la sobrevida general.RESULTADOS:Un margen de resección circunferencial positivo (+) evaluado por imagenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en el momento del diagnóstico fue un predictor no clínico muy significativo de respuesta completa (razón de probabilidades/ OR: 4,1, p = 0,009) al ajustar el nivel de antígeno carcinoembrionario y el tamaño del tumor primario. Comparando con los pacientes que presetaban un margen de resección circunferencial patológico negativo (-), los pacientes con un margen de resección circunferencial patológico positivo (+) tuvieron una sobrevida libre de recidiva local (29% frente a 87%, p < 0,001), un control regional (57% frente a 94%, p < 0,001), una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia (43% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) y una sobrevida global (86% frente a 95%, p < 0,001) inferior en 2 años de seguimiento. Sin embargo, los subgrupos de margen de resección circunferencial (+) y (-) evaluados por imágenes de resonancia magnética nuclear en pacientes que tuvieron una respuesta clínica completa tuvieron un control regional similar, una sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia y una sobrevida general >90% en 2 años de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, tamaño modesto de la muestra, seguimiento corto y heterogeneidad de tratamientos.CONCLUSIONES:La afectación del margen de resección circunferencial evaluado por resonancia magnética nuclear al momento del diagnóstico es un fuerte factor predictivo no clínico de respuesta completa. Sin embargo, los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de un curso corto de radioterapia y quimioterapia de consolidación como manejo conservador tienen excelentes resultados clínicos independientemente del estado del margen de resección circunferencial inicial. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C190 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Feature selection for a continental-scale geospatial model of environmental sound levels.

Modeling environmental sound levels over continental scales is difficult due to the variety of geospatial environments. Moreover, current continental-scale models depend upon machine learning and therefore face additional challenges due to limited acoustic training data. In previous work, an ensemble of machine learning models was used to predict environmental sound levels in the contiguous United States using a training set composed of 51 geospatial layers (downselected from 120) and acoustic data from 496 geographic sites from Pedersen, Transtrum, Gee, Lympany, James, and Salton [JASA Express Lett. 1(12), 122401 (2021)]. In this paper, the downselection process, which is based on factors such as data quality and inter-feature correlations, is described in further detail. To investigate additional dimensionality reduction, four different feature selection methods are applied to the 51 layers. Leave-one-out median absolute deviation cross-validation errors suggest that the number of geospatial features can be reduced to 15 without significant degradation of the model's predictive error. However, ensemble predictions demonstrate that feature selection results are sensitive to variations in details of the problem formulation and, therefore, should elicit some skepticism. These results suggest that more sophisticated dimensionality reduction techniques are necessary for problems with limited training data and different training and testing distributions.

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.

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiation: US Experience of a Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiation followed by chemotherapy as total neoadjuvant therapy has been investigated primarily in Europe and Australia with increasing global acceptance. There are limited data on this regimen's use in the United States, however, potentially delaying implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical performance and oncologic outcomes of 2 rectal cancer neoadjuvant treatment modalities: short-course total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard chemoradiation. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was performed at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 413 patients had locally advanced rectal cancers diagnosed from June 2009 to May 2018 and received either short-course total neoadjuvant therapy or standard chemoradiation. INTERVENTIONS: There were 187 patients treated with short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (5 × 5 Gy radiation followed by consolidation oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy) compared with 226 chemoradiation recipients (approximately 50.4 Gy radiation in 28 fractions with concurrent fluorouracil equivalent). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were tumor downstaging, measured by complete response and "low" neoadjuvant rectal score rates, and progression-free survival. Secondary analyses included treatment characteristics and completion, sphincter preservation, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher rates of complete response (26.2% vs 17.3%; p = 0.03) and "low" neoadjuvant rectal scores (40.1% vs 25.7%; p < 0.01) despite a higher burden of node-positive disease (78.6% vs 68.9%; p = 0.03). Short-course recipients also completed trimodal treatment more frequently (88.4% vs 50.4%; p < 0.01) and had fewer months with temporary stomas (4.8 vs 7.0; p < 0.01). Both regimens achieved comparable local control (local recurrence: 2.7% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy vs 2.2% chemoradiation, p = 0.76) and 2-year progression-free survival (88.2% short-course total neoadjuvant therapy (95% CI, 82.9-93.5) vs 85.6% chemoradiation (95% CI, 80.5-90.7)). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, unbalanced disease severity, and variable dosing of neoadjuvant consolidation chemotherapy were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved downstaging and similar progression-free survival compared with chemoradiation. These results were achieved with shortened radiation courses, improved treatment completion, and less time with diverting ostomies. Short-course total neoadjuvant therapy is an optimal regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724.TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE TOTAL CON RADIACIÓN DE CORTA DURACIÓN: EXPERIENCIA ESTADOUNIDENSE DE UNA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO. ANTECEDENTES: La radiación de corta duración seguida de quimioterapia como terapia neoadyuvante total se ha investigado principalmente en Europa y Australia con una aceptación mundial cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, datos limitados sobre el uso de este régimen en los Estados Unidos, han potencialmente retrasando su implementación. OBJETIVO: Comparar el desempeño clínico y los resultados oncológicos de dos modalidades de tratamiento neoadyuvante del cáncer de recto: terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración versus quimioradiación. estándar. DISEO: Cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Centro oncológico designado por el NCI. PACIENTES: Un total de 413 cánceres rectales localmente avanzados diagnosticados entre junio de 2009 y mayo de 2018 que recibieron cualquiera de los regímenes neoadyuvantes. INTERVENCIONES: Hubo 187 pacientes tratados con terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto (radiación 5 × 5 Gy seguida de quimioterapia de consolidación basada en oxaliplatino) en comparación con 226 pacientes de quimiorradiación (aproximadamente 50,4 Gy de radiación en 28 fracciones con equivalente de fluorouracilo concurrente). PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los criterios primarios de valoración fueron la disminución del estadio del tumor, medido por la respuesta completa y las tasas de puntuación rectal neoadyuvante "baja", y la supervivencia libre de progresión. Los análisis secundarios incluyeron las características del tratamiento y las tasas de finalización, conservación del esfínter y recurrencia. RESULTADOS: La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración, se asoció con tasas más altas de respuesta completa (26,2% versus 17,3%, p = 0,03) y puntuaciones rectales neoadyuvantes "bajas" (40,1% versus 25,7%, p < 0,01) a pesar de una mayor carga de enfermedad con ganglios positivos (78,6% versus 68,9%, p = 0,03). Los pacientes de ciclo corto también completaron el tratamiento trimodal con mayor frecuencia (88,4% versus 50,4%, p < 0,01) y tuvieron menos meses con estomas temporales (4,8 versus 7,0, p < 0,01). Ambos regímenes lograron un control local comparable (recidiva local: 2,7% de SC-TNT versus 2,2% de TRC, p = 0,76) y supervivencia libre de progresión a 2 años (88,2% de SC-TNT [IC: 82,9 - 93,5] versus 85,6% CRT [CI: 80,5 - 90,7]). LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, gravedad de la enfermedad desequilibrada y dosificación variable de quimioterapia neoadyuvante de consolidación. CONCLUSIONES: La terapia neoadyuvante total de ciclo corto se asoció con una mejora en la reducción del estadio y una supervivencia libre de progresión similar en comparación con la quimioradiación. Estos resultados se lograron con ciclos de radiación más cortos, tratamientos mejor finalizados y menos tiempo en ostomías de derivación. La terapia neoadyuvante total de corta duración es un régimen óptimo para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B724. (Traducción- Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

Vorolanib (X-82), an oral anti-VEGFR/PDGFR/CSF1R tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with everolimus in solid tumors: results of a phase I study.

Background Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) combined with mTOR inhibitors, like everolimus, result in significant responses and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) [1]. However, everolimus doses >5 mg are often not tolerated when combined with other TKIs2,3. Vorolanib (X-82), an oral anti-VEGFR/platelet derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)/colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) multitarget TKI, has a short half-life and limited tissue accumulation. We conducted a Phase 1 study of vorolanib with everolimus (10 mg daily) in patients with solid tumors. Methods A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized to determine dose limiting toxicities (DLT) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of vorolanib/everolimus. Oral vorolanib at 100, 150, 200, 300, or 400 mg was combined with 10 mg oral everolimus daily. The phase 2 portion was terminated after enrolling two patients due to funding. Results Eighteen patients were evaluable for DLT among 22 treated subjects. Observed DLTs were grade 3 fatigue, hypophosphatemia, and mucositis. The RP2D is vorolanib 300 mg with everolimus 10 mg daily. In 15 patients evaluable for response, three had partial response (PR; 2 RCC, 1 neuroendocrine tumor [NET]) and eight had stable disease (SD; 2 RCC, 6 NET). Conclusions Vorolanib can safely be combined with everolimus. Encouraging activity is seen in RCC and NET. Further studies are warranted. Trial Registration Number: NCT01784861.

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.

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.

Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma: Etiology, Presentation, and Molecular Alterations.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare cancer that has been treated similarly to colorectal cancer (CRC) in the advanced setting. Incidence has been increasing as detection efforts have been improving for these challenging-to-diagnose tumors, but patients frequently experience prolonged nonspecific symptoms due to delayed diagnosis. As a result of such delays and likely due to variant biology, patient outcomes for SBA are inferior to those for CRC at all stages of diagnosis. Recent molecular studies highlight the genomic differences underpinning these tumors and suggest new future pathways for treatment, distinct from CRC.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.

Pancreatic cancer risk is modulated by inflammatory potential of diet and ABO genotype: a consortia-based evaluation and replication study.

Diets with high inflammatory potential are suspected to increase risk for pancreatic cancer (PC). Using pooled analyses, we examined whether this association applies to populations from different geographic regions and population subgroups with varying risks for PC, including variation in ABO blood type. Data from six case-control studies (cases, n = 2414; controls, n = 4528) in the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4) were analyzed, followed by replication in five nested case-control studies (cases, n = 1268; controls, n = 4215) from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan). Two polymorphisms in the ABO locus (rs505922 and rs8176746) were used to infer participants' blood types. Dietary questionnaire-derived nutrient/food intake was used to compute energy-adjusted dietary inflammatory index (E-DII®) scores to assess inflammatory potential of diet. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression. Higher E-DII scores, reflecting greater inflammatory potential of diet, were associated with increased PC risk in PanC4 [ORQ5 versus Q1=2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.85-2.61, Ptrend < 0.0001; ORcontinuous = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.17-1.24], and PanScan (ORQ5 versus Q1 = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.92-1.66, Ptrend = 0.008; ORcontinuous = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.02-1.15). As expected, genotype-derived non-O blood type was associated with increased PC risk in both the PanC4 and PanScan studies. Stratified analyses of associations between E-DII quintiles and PC by genotype-derived ABO blood type did not show interaction by blood type (Pinteraction = 0.10 in PanC4 and Pinteraction=0.13 in PanScan). The results show that consuming a pro-inflammatory diet and carrying non-O blood type are each individually, but not interactively, associated with increased PC risk.

Phase II trial of gemcitabine and tanespimycin (17AAG) in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a Mayo Clinic Phase II Consortium study.

OBJECTIVES: Heat Shock Protein 90 (HSP90) is a molecular chaperone that stabilizes many oncogenic proteins. HSP90 inhibitors may sensitize tumors to cytotoxic agents by causing client protein degradation. Gemcitabine, which has modest activity in pancreas cancer, activates Chk1, a client protein of HSP90. This phase II trial was designed to determine whether 17AAG could enhance the clinical activity of gemcitabine through degradation of Chk1 in patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective study combining gemcitabine and 17AAG enrolled patients with stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma, adequate liver and kidney function, ECOG performance status 0-2, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary goal was to achieve a 60 % overall survival at 6 months. Sixty-six patients were planned for accrual, with an interim analysis after 25 patients enrolled. RESULTS: After a futility analysis to achieve the endpoint, accrual was halted with 21 patients enrolled. No complete or partial responses were seen. Forty percent of patients were alive at 6 months. Median overall survival was 5.4 months. Tolerability was moderate, with 65 % of patients having ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AE), and 15 % having grade 4 events. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of clinical activity suggests that targeting Chk1 by inhibiting HSP90 is not important in pancreatic cancer sensitivity to gemcitabine alone. Further studies of HSP90 targeted agents with gemcitabine alone are not warranted.

A Pilot Study of Paricalcitol plus Nanoliposomal Irinotecan and 5-FU/LV in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients after Progression on Gemcitabine-Based Therapy.

PURPOSE: Vitamin D analogues remodel the desmoplastic stroma, and improve vascularity and efficacy of chemotherapy in preclinical pancreas cancer models. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of the vitamin D analogue paricalcitol in combination with nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-iri) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy. Two dose levels (DL) of paricalcitol were tested: fixed dose weekly (75 mcg, DL1) and weight-based weekly (7 mcg/kg, /DL2). The primary endpoint was safety, and secondary endpoints included overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Correlative objectives aimed to identify molecular predictors of response and alterations in the tumor stroma. RESULTS: Twenty patients (10 each in DL1 and DL2) enrolled between March 2019 and May 2021. No grade 3/4 adverse events related to paricalcitol were observed. The most common toxicities were nausea, diarrhea and fatigue, which were similar in both cohorts. Three patients discontinued study after one cycle and were not radiographically evaluable. Of the remaining 17 evaluable patients, 2 had partial response and 12 had stable disease. The median PFS for response-evaluable patients in DL1 was 4.14 months, for DL2 was 4.83 months. Intent-to-treat median OS was 6.15 and 6.66 months for DL1 and DL2, respectively. Correlative studies showed increased tumor vascularity in posttreatment samples in patients receiving the higher dose of paricalcitol (DL2). CONCLUSIONS: Paricalcitol at 7 mcg/kg/week in combination with Nal-iri/ 5-FU/LV is safely tolerated, may increase tumor vascularity and warrants further investigation.

Understanding Suboptimal Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as a novel class of anticancer therapy, can be more efficacious and less toxic than chemotherapy, but their clinical success is confined to certain tumor types. Elucidating their targets, mechanisms and scope of action, and potential synergism with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapies are critical to widen their clinical indications. Treatment response to an ICI targeting programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) is sought to be understood here by conducting a preplanned correlative analysis of a phase II clinical trial in patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). The cytolytic capacity of circulating immune cells in cancer patients using a novel ex vivo cytotoxicity assay is evaluated, and the utility of circulating biomarkers is investigated to predict and monitor the treatment effect of anti-PD-1. Baseline expression of Bim and NKG7 and upregulation of CX3CR1 in circulating T cells are associated with the clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 in patients with SBA. Overall, these findings suggest that the frequency and cytolytic capacity of circulating, effector immune cells may differentiate clinical response to ICIs, providing a strong rationale to support immune monitoring using patient peripheral blood.

MR-Guided Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy in Inoperable Pancreatic Cancer: A TITE-CRM Phase I Trial.

PURPOSE: Ablative radiation therapy for borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA-PDAC) may limit concurrent chemotherapy dosing and usually is only safely deliverable to tumors distant from gastrointestinal organs. Magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy may safely permit radiation and chemotherapy dose escalation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a single-arm phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of ablative hypofractionated radiation with full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with BR/LA-PDAC. Patients were treated with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/125 mg/m2) x 1c then concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation. Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel and radiation doses were escalated per time-to-event continual reassessment method from 40 to 45 Gy 25 fxs with chemotherapy (600-800/75 mg/m2) to 60 to 67.5 Gy/15 fractions and concurrent gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose of radiation as defined by 60-day dose limiting toxicity (DLT). DLT was treatment-related G5, G4 hematologic, or G3 gastrointestinal requiring hospitalization >3 days. Secondary endpoints included resection rates, local progression free survival (LPFS), distant metastasis free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty patients enrolled (March 2015-February 2019), with 26 evaluable patients (2 progressed before radiation, 1 was determined ineligible for radiation during planning, 1 withdrew consent). One DLT was observed. The DLT rate was 14.1% (3.3%-24.9%) with a maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000/100 mg/m2) and 67.5 Gy/15 fractions. At a median follow-up of 40.6 months for living patients the median OS was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.9-28.2 months). The median OS for patients with Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group 0 and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 <90 were 34.1 (95% CI, 13.6-54.1) and 43.0 (95% CI, 8.0-not reached) months, respectively. Two-year LPFS and DMFS were 85% (95% CI, 63%-94%) and 57% (95% CI, 34%-73%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Full-dose gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel with ablative magnetic resonance guided radiation therapy dosing is safe in patients with BR/LA-PDAC, with promising LPFS and DMFS.