Supporting the decision to perform molecular profiling for cancer patients based on routinely collected data through the use of machine learning.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine offers targeted therapy options for cancer treatment. However, the decision whether to include a patient into next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing is not standardized. This may result in some patients receiving unnecessary testing while others who could benefit from it are not tested. Typically, patients who have exhausted conventional treatment options are of interest for consideration in molecularly targeted therapy. To assist clinicians in decision-making, we developed a decision support tool using routine data from a precision oncology program. METHODS: We trained a machine learning model on clinical data to determine whether molecular profiling should be performed for a patient. To validate the model, the model's predictions were compared with decisions made by a molecular tumor board (MTB) using multiple patient case vignettes with their characteristics. RESULTS: The prediction model included 440 patients with molecular profiling and 13,587 patients without testing. High area under the curve (AUC) scores indicated the importance of engineered features in deciding on molecular profiling. Patient age, physical condition, tumor type, metastases, and previous therapies were the most important features. During the validation MTB experts made the same decision of recommending a patient for molecular profiling only in 10 out of 15 of their previous cases but there was agreement between the experts and the model in 9 out of 15 cases. CONCLUSION: Based on a historical cohort, our predictive model has the potential to assist clinicians in deciding whether to perform molecular profiling.

Identification of a gene expression signature associated with brain metastasis in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Brain metastasis (BM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is a rare event with poor prognosis. Apart from (K)RAS status and lung and bone metastasis no biomarkers exist to identify patients at risk. This study aimed to identify a gene expression signature associated with colorectal BM. METHODS: Three patient groups were formed: 1. CRC with brain metastasis (BRA), 2. exclusive liver metastasis (HEP) and, 3. non-metastatic disease (M0). RNA was extracted from primary tumors and mRNA expression was measured using a NanoString Panel (770 genes). Expression was confirmed by qPCR in a validation cohort. Statistical analyses including multivariate logistic regression followed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed. RESULTS: EMILIN3, MTA1, SV2B, TMPRSS6, ACVR1C, NFAT5 and SMC3 were differentially expressed in BRA and HEP/M0 groups. In the validation cohort, differential NFAT5, ACVR1C and SMC3 expressions were confirmed. BRA patients showed highest NFAT5 levels compared to HEP/M0 groups (global p = 0.02). High ACVR1C expression was observed more frequently in the BRA group (42.9%) than in HEP (0%) and M0 (7.1%) groups (global p = 0.01). High SMC3 expressions were only detectable in the BRA group (global p = 0.003). Only patients with BM showed a combined high expression of NFAT5, ACVR1C or SMC3 as well as of all three genes. ROC analysis revealed a good prediction of brain metastasis by the three genes (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The NFAT5, ACVR1C and SMC3 gene expression signature is associated with colorectal BM. Future studies should further investigate the importance of this biomarker signature.

Adjuvant treatment with S-1 in patients after R0-resection of adenocarcinoma of the stomach and esophagogastric junction - A multicenter phase I/II feasibility study (GMBH-STO-0114).

INTRODUCTION: S-1 has been shown to be an effective adjuvant treatment option for East Asian patients who underwent gastrectomy for stage II/III gastric cancer. We conducted a phase I/II study to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability and efficacy of administering S-1 in the adjuvant setting after R0-resection of adenocarcinoma of the stomach and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) in Caucasian patients. METHODS: In this single-cohort, open-label, phase I/II trial, we enrolled patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or EGJ having undergone R0-resection with or without neoadjuvant treatment. One treatment cycle consisted of oral S-1 (30mg/m² bid) for 14 days. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks for 18 cycles (54 weeks). Primary endpoint was feasibility and tolerability. Safety was evaluated according to the common toxicity criteria adverse events 4.0 criteria. Secondary endpoints were one-year relapse-free survival rate, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between 10/2015 and 02/2018, 32 patients were enrolled in 12 German centres and 30 started adjuvant study treatment. Seventeen patients completed all 18 cycles. Two patients terminated study treatment due to adverse events (AEs), 7 due to patient's or investigator's decision and 4 due to recurrence or distant metastasis during adjuvant therapy. Dose levels were reduced to 25 mg/m² in 9 patients, and to 20 mg/m² in 1 patient. Of patients completing all 18 cycles, 5 did so with reduced dosage of S-1. Documented grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia, diarrhoea, vomiting, polyneuropathy, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia and rash. Serious AEs were observed in 7 patients. Median RFS was 32.2 months. One-year relapse-free survival rate was 77%. Data on OS were still premature at the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant treatment with S-1 for one year is a feasible and safe treatment option for Caucasian patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma or cancer of the EGJ cancer after R0-resection.

Unresectable biliary tract cancer: Current and future systemic therapy.

For decades, treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) was confined to the use of chemotherapy. In recent years however, the number of therapeutic options available for patients with unresectable BTC have drastically increased, with immunotherapy and targeted treatment gradually joining the ranks of guideline-recommended treatment regimens. The aim of the present review is to summarise the current knowledge on unresectable BTC focusing on epidemiology, anatomical distribution and current strategies for systemic treatment. We further outline ongoing clinical trials and provide an outlook on future therapeutic interventions. In the realm of gastrointestinal malignancies, the increasing number of systemic treatment options for BTC is finally delivering on the longstanding commitment to personalised oncology. This emphasises the need for considering a comprehensive genomic-based pathology assessment right from the initial diagnosis to fully leverage the expanding array of therapeutic options that have recently become accessible.

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety data from head-to-head first-line trials of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors versus bevacizumab in adult patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer by sidedness.

The first-line treatment choice of EGFRIs plus doublet chemotherapy vs. bevacizumab plus doublet chemotherapy remains a topic of interest for patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of clinical trial data published between 2015 and 2024. We evaluated the relative efficacy and safety of first-line EGFRIs plus doublet chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX) vs. bevacizumab plus doublet chemotherapy for patients with RAS WT left-sided mCRC, as well as in all- and right-sided tumors. We identified eight trials with 2624 patients. Five trials reported outcomes by tumor sidedness. In the left-sided population, overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.71-0.90) and objective response rate (ORR) (Odds ratio [OR]=1.61, 95% CI: 1.30-1.99) favored EGFRI plus chemotherapy, while no statistically significant differences were observed for progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.84-1.04) or resection rate (RR). Similar results were found in the all-sided population. In the right-sided population, PFS favored bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (HR=1.45, 95% CI: 1.19-1.78), while no statistically significant differences were observed for OS (HR=1.17, 95% CI: 0.95-1.44), ORR (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.69-1.41), and RR. Early tumor shrinkage in the all-sided population favored EGFRI plus chemotherapy (OR=1.72; 95% CI: 1.36-2.17); limited data precluded evaluation by sidedness. Safety was available in 6 trials for all-sided tumors and 1 trial for left-sided tumors, each demonstrating typical class-specific adverse events. This most comprehensive meta-analysis indicates a benefit for first-line EGFRI plus chemotherapy over bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC.

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel combined with afatinib in metastatic pancreatic cancer - Results of a phase 1b clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel is an established standard treatment in the first-line treatment of metastatic ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (mPDAC). Afatinib, an oral second-generation pan ErbB family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has shown promising pre-clinical signs in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this phase 1b trial was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of afatinib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with mPDAC. METHODS: Treatment naïve patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven mPDAC and good performance status (ECOG 0/1) were enrolled to receive gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in combination with afatinib. Treatment was continued until disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint MTD was determined using a 3 + 3 design. Treatment started at dose level 0 with intravenous gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel 1000 mg/m2 / 125 mg/m2 (day 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle) + oral afatinib 30 mg daily. At dose level + 1 afatinib was increased to 40 mg. Secondary endpoints included safety parameters and exploratory endpoints evaluated treatment efficacy. RESULTS: Twelve patients were included in this trial, and 11 patients were treated and analysed in the safety and full analysis set (FAS). At dose level 0 the first three patients did not experience a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). At dose leve (DL) + 1 two patients experienced a DLT. Accordingly, enrolment continued at DL 0 with three more patients, of which one experienced DLT (skin rash ≥ CTCAE grade 3). Seven patients (63.6%) experienced at least one treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE), with four patients (36.4%) experiencing TESAEs grade 3-5 related to the study medication. In the FAS, the objective response rate (ORR) was 36.4%, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.5 months and median overall survival in nine evaluable patients was 7.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1b clinical trial, the MTD of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (1000 mg/m2 / 125 mg/m2) and afatinib (30 mg) was established. In a cohort of 11 patients, the combination showed an acceptable safety profile.

Negative Hyperselection of Resistance Mutations for Panitumumab Maintenance in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa Phase II Trial, AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: We evaluated additional mutations in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as prognostic and predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of added panitumumab to a 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (FU/FA) maintenance as pre-specified analysis of the randomized PanaMa trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mutations (MUT) were identified using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS; Illumina Cancer Hotspot Panel v2) and IHC. RAS/BRAF V600E/PIK3CA/AKT1/ALK1/ERBB2/PTEN MUT and HER2/neu overexpressions were negatively hyperselected and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since start of maintenance treatment, and objective response rates (ORR). Univariate/multivariate Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: 202 of 248 patients (81.5%) of the full analysis set (FAS) had available NGS data: hyperselection WT, 162 (80.2%); MUT, 40 (19.8%). From start of maintenance therapy, hyperselection WT tumors were associated with longer median PFS as compared with hyperselection MUT mCRC (7.5 vs. 5.4 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.07; P = 0.11), OS (28.7 vs. 22.2 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77; P = 0.001), and higher ORR (35.8% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.26). The addition of panitumumab to maintenance was associated with significant benefit in hyperselection WT tumors for PFS (9.2 vs. 6.0 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.93; P = 0.02) and numerically also for OS (36.9 vs. 24.9 months; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61-1.36; P = 0.50), but not in hyperselection MUT tumors. Hyperselection status interacted with maintenance treatment arms in terms of PFS (P = 0.06) and OS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Extended molecular profiling beyond RAS may have the potential to improve the patient selection for anti-EGFR containing maintenance regimens.

Prognostic and predictive impact of metastatic organ involvement on maintenance therapy in advanced metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup analysis of patients treated within the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212).

Despite molecular selection, patients (pts) with RAS wildtype mCRC represent a heterogeneous population including diversity in metastatic spread. We investigated metastatic patterns for their prognostic and predictive impact on maintenance therapy with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid ± panitumumab. The study population was stratified according to (1) number of involved metastatic sites (single vs multiple organ metastasis), liver-limited disease vs (2) liver metastasis plus one additional site, and (3) vs liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions were used to correlate efficacy endpoints. Single organ metastasis was observed in 133 pts (53.6%) with 102 pts (41.1%) presenting with liver-limited disease, while multiple organ metastases were reported in 114 pts (46.0). Multiple compared to single organ metastases were associated with less favorable PFS (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13-1.93; P = .004) and OS (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98-1.93; P = .068) of maintenance therapy. While metastatic spread involving one additional extrahepatic site was not associated with clearly impaired survival compared to liver-limited disease, pts with liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites demonstrated less favorable PFS (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83; P < .001), and OS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.51-3.76; P < .001) of maintenance therapy. Pmab-containing maintenance therapy appeared active in both pts with multiple (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; P = .006) as well as to a lesser numerical extent in pts with single organ metastasis (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = .332; Interaction P = .183). These data may support clinical decisions when EGFR-based maintenance therapy is considered.

Effect of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Cytoreductive Surgery in Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases: The Phase III GASTRIPEC-I Trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from gastric cancer (GC), chemotherapy is the treatment of choice. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are still being debated. This randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter phase III trial (EudraCT 2006-006088-22; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02158988) explored the impact on overall survival (OS) of HIPEC after CRS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with GC and histologically proven PM were randomly assigned (1:1) to perioperative chemotherapy and CRS alone (CRS-A) or CRS plus HIPEC (CRS + H). HIPEC comprised mitomycin C 15 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 in 5 L of saline perfused for 60 minutes at 42°C. The primary end point was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), other distant metastasis-free survival (MFS), and safety. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and June 2018, 105 patients were randomly assigned (53 patients to CRS-A and 52 patients to CRS + H). The trial stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. In 55 patients, treatment stopped before CRS mainly due to disease progression/death. Median OS was the same for both groups (CRS + H, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 8.7 to 17.7] months v CRS-A, 14.9 [97.2% CI, 7.0 to 19.4] months; P = .1647). The PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 7.0) in the CRS-A group and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.5; P = .047) in the CRS + H group. The CRS + H group showed better MFS (10.2 months [95% CI, 7.7 to 14.7] v CRS-A, 9.2 months [95% CI, 6.8 to 11.5]; P = .0286). The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups (CRS-A, 38.1% v CRS + H, 43.6%; P = .79). CONCLUSION: This study showed no OS difference between CRS + H and CRS-A. PFS and MFS were significantly better in the CRS + H group, which needs further exploration. HIPEC did not increase AEs.

Three-month life expectancy as inclusion criterion for clinical trials in advanced pancreatic cancer: is it really a valid tool for patient selection?

PURPOSE: To analyze the 3-month life expectancy rate in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients treated within prospective trials from the German AIO study group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted for patients with advanced PC that were treated within five phase II/III studies conducted between 1997 and 2017 (Gem/Cis, Ro96, RC57, ACCEPT, RASH). The primary goal for the current report was to identify the actual 3-month survival rate, a standard inclusion criterion in oncology trials. RESULTS: Overall, 912 patients were included, 83% had metastatic and 17% locally advanced PC; the estimated median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months. Twenty-one percent of the participants survived < 3 months, with a range from 26% in RC57 to 15% in RASH. Significant predictors for not reaching 3-month OS were > 1 previous treatment line (p < 0.001) and performance status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the definition of a life expectancy of > 3 months as a standard inclusion criterion in clinical trials for advanced PC, a significant proportion of study patients does not survive > 3 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00440167 (AIO-PK0104), NCT01729481 (RASH), NCT01728818 (ACCEPT).

Closing the cancer care gap with a patient-reported nutrition screening: A retrospective analysis of a quality improvement project on an oncology ward (CCC study).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early identification of patients at risk for malnutrition followed by individualized nutrition interventions is a central step to the provision of appropriate nutrition care. However, a health care professional (HCP)-based nutrition screening is not always consistently integrated into routine care. Patient-reported (PR) nutrition screening could thus potentially alleviate the burden on the HCPs and contribute to a greater number of patients who are identified and treated for malnutrition. METHODS: In 2021 a Quality Improvement Project (QIP) at our out-patient oncology clinic was undertaken to implement the change from a HCP-based nutrition screening to a PR-screening. This was followed by a retrospective analysis in which the primary outcome measure was the rate of nutrition consultations initiated for patients undergoing cancer therapy. RESULTS: In total n = 1657 patient data sets derived from comparable time periods before and after the QIP were analyzed and compared. Both groups had a comparable mean age and gender distribution. The most common diagnosis in both groups was gastrointestinal tumors. The change in routine care from a HCP-based nutrition screening to a PR-screening led to a significant increase in nutrition consultation rates (RD = 19%; p < 0.001; 95% CI 14.4%-23.5%) and screening rates (RD = 30.5%; p < 0.001; 95% CI 26.2%-34.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The change to PR-screening potentially facilitates an increase in nutrition screening rates. This in turn leads to an increased rate of patients identified at risk for malnutrition and thus referrals for nutrition consultations. Our findings indicate that a PR nutrition screening tool could play a role in closing the care gap and contribute to reducing rates of malnutrition among this population where screening is not consistently integrated into routine care.

Early mortality in German patients with lung cancer: risk factors associated with 30-and 60-day mortality.

Despite therapeutic advances, early mortality in lung cancer is still prevalent. In this study, we aimed to assess risk factors for 30- and 60-day mortality in German lung cancer patients. In this retrospective cross-sectional analysis, we used data of lung cancer patients treated at LMU Hospital Munich between 2015 and 2019. We categorized patients into 30-day mortality, 60 day-mortality, and longer survival. We used Student's t-test and ANOVA to compare means and Chi2-test to compare frequencies. We used logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with a risk for early mortality. Of the 2454 lung cancer patients, 2.0% (n = 50) died within 30 and 1.7% (n = 41) within 30 to 60 days of diagnosis. Older age and advanced stage at diagnosis were significantly associated with early mortality in the univariate and the multivariate analysis. Patients in the 30-day mortality group significantly more often did not receive tumor-directed therapy. They were also more likely to die in an acute care setting compared to the 60-day mortality group. The group of patients who died unexpectedly (12.0%) was dominantly female, with a high proportion of patients with unintentional weight loss at the time of diagnosis. Our results suggest that in the treatment of patients with lung cancer there is a need for a greater focus on older patients. Moreover, physicians should pay special attention to females with recent weight loss and patients with a comorbidity of diabetes mellitus or renal impairment. Engaging a case manager focused on detecting patients with the above characteristics could help improve overall care.

The Oncology Biomarker Discovery framework reveals cetuximab and bevacizumab response patterns in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Precision medicine has revolutionised cancer treatments; however, actionable biomarkers remain scarce. To address this, we develop the Oncology Biomarker Discovery (OncoBird) framework for analysing the molecular and biomarker landscape of randomised controlled clinical trials. OncoBird identifies biomarkers based on single genes or mutually exclusive genetic alterations in isolation or in the context of tumour subtypes, and finally, assesses predictive components by their treatment interactions. Here, we utilise the open-label, randomised phase III trial (FIRE-3, AIO KRK-0306) in metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients, who received either cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). We systematically identify five biomarkers with predictive components, e.g., patients with tumours that carry chr20q amplifications or lack mutually exclusive ERK signalling mutations benefited from cetuximab compared to bevacizumab. In summary, OncoBird characterises the molecular landscape and outlines actionable biomarkers, which generalises to any molecularly characterised randomised controlled trial.

Implementing precision oncology for sarcoma patients: the CCCLMUmolecular tumor board experience.

PURPOSE: Due to poor outcomes and limited treatment options, patients with advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas (BS/STS) may undergo comprehensive molecular profiling of tumor samples to identify possible therapeutic targets. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of routine molecular profiling in the setting of a dedicated precision oncology program in patients with BS/STS in a German large-volume sarcoma center. METHODS: 92 BS/STS patients who received comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and were subsequently discussed in our molecular tumor board (MTB) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed, and the clinical impact of NGS-related findings was analyzed. RESULTS: 89.1% of patients had received at least one treatment line before NGS testing. At least one molecular alteration was found in 71 patients (82.6%). The most common alterations were mutations in TP53 (23.3% of patients), followed by PIK3CA and MDM2 mutations (9.3% each). Druggable alterations were identified, and treatment recommended in 32 patients (37.2%). Of those patients with actionable alterations, ten patients (31.2%) received personalized treatment and six patients did benefit from molecular-based therapy in terms of a progression-free survival ratio (PFSr) > 1.3. CONCLUSION: Our single-center experience shows an increasing uptake of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and highlights current challenges of implementing precision oncology in the management of patients with BS/STS. A relevant number of patients were diagnosed with clinically actionable alterations. Our results highlight the potential benefit of NGS in patients with rare cancers and currently limited therapeutic options.

A Retrospective Analysis of Biliary Tract Cancer Patients Presented to the Molecular Tumor Board at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: With the rising importance of precision oncology in biliary tract cancer (BTC), the aim of this retrospective single-center analysis was to describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with BTC who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and were discussed in the CCCMunichLMU molecular tumor board (MTB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center observational study, we included BTC patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), extrahepatic CCA (eCCA), and gallbladder cancer (GB), who had been discussed in the institutional MTB from May 29, 2017, to July 25, 2022. Patients were followed up until 31 January 2023. Data were retrospectively collected by review of medical charts, and MTB recommendation. RESULTS: In total, 153 cases were registered to the MTB with a median follow-up of 15 months. Testing was successful in 81.7% of the patients. CGP detected targetable alterations in 35.3% of our BTC patients (most commonly ARID1A/ERBB2/IDH1/PIK3CA/BRAF-mutations and FGFR2-fusions). Recommendations for molecularly guided therapy were given in 46.4%. Of those, treatment implementation of targeted therapy followed in 19.4%. In patients receiving the recommended treatment, response rate was 57% and median overall survival was 19 months (vs 8 months in the untreated cohort). The progression-free survival ratio of 1.45 suggest a clinical benefit of molecularly guided treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous work, our series demonstrates feasibility and clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling in BTC patients. With the growing number of targeted agents with clinical activity in BTC, CGP should become standard of care in the management of this group of patients.

Key Prognostic Factors Create a Composite Risk Score to Stratify Patients into High- and Low-Treatment Benefit Groups: A Multicenter, Retrospective Data Analysis of 84 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Regorafenib as Part of the CORRECT and CONSIGN Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In further-line mCRC treatment, median progression-free survival (PFS) is rather short, and many patients do not benefit from any antitumor treatment and should therefore be treated according to best-supportive care. A risk score based on standard laboratory values using markers of tumor inflammation aims to define a patient cohort with high treatment benefit and might offer insights into tumor biology. As regorafenib has been dropped off the German market due to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, patient selection is key for any further-line treatment option. METHODS: We used Cox regression analysis to determine laboratory markers that are independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS outcome. The influence of these variables was weighted using an estimator, which was calculated using Cox regression analysis. The estimators were implemented as multiplication factors, resulting in a risk score. A cut-off value for the resulting risk values was then determined via Cox regression analysis resulting in a low- and high-risk subgroup. RESULTS: Using data of 82 patients, a risk score identifying long-term survival in patients with last-line mCRC treatment could be calculated. The following parameters were associated with significantly longer survival in multivariate analysis: NLR ≤5 (p = <0.001), AP ≤200 U/L (p = 0.001), CRP ≤3.2 mg/dL (p = <0.001). The following estimator values were used to calculate a risk score: NLR: 0.132 (p = 0.046), AP: 0.004 (p = 0.014), and CRP: 0.032 (p = 0.039). Implementing the estimators as multiplication factors yielded the following risk score: 0.132*NLR + 0.004*AP + 0.032*CRP = Risk value. Cox regression resulted in low- and high-risk subgroups with risk values below and above 1.4, respectively. In the group with a low-risk score (<1.4), patients had a median OS of 10.5 months after initiating regorafenib. Patients with a high-risk score (>1.4) survived only 3.3 months after starting therapy with regorafenib (n = 43, p < 0.001, HR = 3.76). CONCLUSIONS: The presented composite risk score stratifies patients into two prognostic subgroups characterized by standard laboratory values. Patients with signs of systemic inflammation characterized by elevated NLR, AP, and CRP have a high composite risk score and a significant shorter overall survival. Although this score needs to be prospectively validated in larger cohorts, it may be used to stratify patients suitable for further-line treatment studies.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab as maintenance therapy: a prespecified secondary analysis of the PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial.

BACKGROUND: The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial. METHODS: HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

Stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic and their association with distress, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in cancer out-patients.

Patients with cancer might be particularly prone to stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pandemic-related stressors on oncological patients' psychological well-being. During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany 122 cancer out-patients of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich reported on COVID-19-related stressors (information satisfaction, threat perception, and fear of disease deterioration) and answered standardized questionnaires for psychosocial distress (DT) as well as depression and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-2, GAD-2). Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify associations of the COVID-19-related stressors with psychological symptoms, controlling for sociodemographic, psychological (self-efficacy, ASKU) and clinical (somatic symptom burden, SSS-8) variables. Initially, satisfaction with information was significantly negatively associated with all three outcome variables. Fear of disease deterioration was associated with distress and depressive symptoms. After controlling for additional variables, only satisfaction with information remained an independent determinant of anxiety (ß = -0.35, p < 0.001). All three outcomes were most strongly determined by somatic symptom burden (ß ≥ 0.40, p < 0.001). The results of this study tentatively suggest that physical well-being overrides the relevance of some COVID-19-related stressors for oncological patients' psychological wellbeing. Physical symptoms are strongly tied to personal wellbeing as they are associated with suffering from cancer, which might be more central to personal wellbeing than the possibility of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, satisfaction with the information received seems to be important beyond physical wellbeing, as this emerged as an independent determinant of anxiety.

Case of a Patient With Pancreatic Cancer With Sporadic Microsatellite Instability Associated With a BRAF Fusion Achieving Excellent Response to Immunotherapy.

In this case report, we discuss a case of pancreatic cancer bearing a BRAF fusion, leading to MAPK activation, MLHph, and finally MSI.