Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Standard of Care for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Analysis of the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III LEAP-017 Study.

PURPOSE: Treatment options are limited for patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the LEAP-017 study, we evaluate whether lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab improves outcomes compared with standard of care (SOC) in previously treated mismatch repair proficient or not microsatellite instability high (pMMR or not MSI-H) mCRC. METHODS: In this international, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III study, eligible patients age 18 years and older with unresectable, pMMR or not MSI-H mCRC, that had progressed on or after, or could not tolerate, standard treatment, were randomly assigned 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg orally once daily plus pembrolizumab 400 mg intravenously once every 6 weeks or investigator's choice of regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (SOC). Randomization was stratified by presence or absence of liver metastases. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). LEAP-017 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776148), and has completed recruitment. RESULTS: Between April 8, 2021, and December 21, 2021, 480 patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 241) or SOC (n = 239). At final analysis (median follow-up of 18.6 months [IQR, 3.9]), median OS with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus SOC was 9.8 versus 9.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02]; P = .0379; prespecified threshold P = .0214). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 58.4% (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab) versus 42.1% (SOC) of patients. Two participants died due to treatment-related adverse events, both in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with pMMR or not MSI-H mCRC that had progressed on previous therapy, there was no statistically significant improvement in OS after lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment versus SOC. No new safety signals were observed.

Olaparib with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine as maintenance therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: The randomized phase 3 LYNK-003 study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis. METHODS: Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review. RESULTS: Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04456699.

Nivolumab plus relatlimab in patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II CheckMate 142 study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, including nivolumab, have demonstrated long-term survival benefit in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PD-1 and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) are distinct immune checkpoints that are often co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and contribute to tumor-mediated T-cell dysfunction. Relatlimab is a LAG-3 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in combination with nivolumab in patients with melanoma. Here, we present the results from patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab in the CheckMate 142 study. METHODS: In this open-label, phase II study, previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC received nivolumab 240 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 50 previously treated patients received nivolumab plus relatlimab. With median follow-up of 47.4 (range 43.9-49.2) months, investigator-assessed ORR was 50% (95% CI 36% to 65%) and disease control rate was 70% (95% CI 55% to 82%). The median time to response per investigator was 2.8 (range 1.3-33.1) months, and median duration of response was 42.7 (range 2.8-47.0+) months. The median progression-free survival per investigator was 27.5 (95% CI 5.3 to 43.7) months with a progression-free survival rate at 3 years of 38%, and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17.2 months to not estimable), with a 56% overall survival rate at 3 years. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (24%), asthenia (16%), and hypothyroidism (12%). Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were reported in 14% of patients, and TRAEs of any grade leading to discontinuation were observed in 8% of patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus relatlimab provided durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02060188.

Hypertension as predictive factor for bevacizumab-containing first-line therapy in metastatic breast and colorectal cancer in BRECOL (GEICAM/2011-04) study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective data suggest an association between bevacizumab efficacy and the incidence of arterial hypertension (AHT). Additionally, epigenetic mechanisms have been related to AHT. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted by GEICAM Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group included metastatic breast (MBC) or colorectal (mCRC) cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy as first-line treatment. Blood pressure (BP) levels were measured (conventional and 24-h Holter monitoring) at baseline and up to cycle 3. Primary endpoint assessed BP levels increase as predictive factor for progression-free survival (PFS). Germline DNA methylation profile was explored in pre-treatment blood samples; principal component analysis was used to define an epigenetic predictive score for increased BP levels. RESULTS: From Oct-2012 to Jul-2016, 143 (78 MBC and 65 mCRC) patients were included. The incidence of AHT according to guidelines was neither predictive of PFS nor of best overall tumor response (BOR). No statistically significant association was observed with systolic BP nor diastolic BP increment for PFS or BOR. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were observed in 37 and 5% of patients, respectively. We identified 27 sites which baseline methylation status was significantly associated to BP levels increase secondary to bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the frequency of AHT nor the increase of BP levels were predictive of efficacy in MBC and mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01733628.

Sequential RAS mutations evaluation in cell-free DNA of patients with tissue RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the PERSEIDA (Cohort 2) study.

PURPOSE: RAS (KRAS/NRAS) mutational status on a tumor biopsy is mandatory to guide the best treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Determining the RAS mutational status by tumor-tissue biopsy is essential in guiding the optimal treatment decision for mCRC. RAS mutations are negative predictive factors for the use of EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis enables minimally invasive monitoring of tumor evolution. METHODS/PATIENTS: PERSEIDA was an observational, prospective study assessing cfDNA RAS, BRAF and EGFR mutations (using Idylla™) in first-line mCRC, RAS wild-type (baseline tumor-tissue biopsy) patients (cohort 2). Plasma samples were collected before first-line treatment, after 20 ± 2 weeks, and at disease progression. RESULTS: 117 patients were included (103 received panitumumab + chemotherapy as first-line treatment). At baseline, 7 (6.8%) patients had RAS mutations, 4 (3.9%) BRAF mutations and no EGFR mutations were detected (cfDNA, panitumumab + chemotherapy subpopulation [panitumumab + Ch]). The baseline RAS mutational status concordance between tissue and liquid biopsies was 94.0% (93.2%, panitumumab + Ch). At 20 weeks, only one patient in the study (included in the panitumumab + Ch) had an emerging cfDNA RAS mutation. No emerging BRAF or EGFR mutations were reported. At disease progression, 6 patients had emergent mutations not present at baseline (RAS conversion rate: 13.3% [6/45]; 15.0% [6/40], panitumumab + Ch). CONCLUSIONS: The concordance rate between liquid and solid biopsies at baseline was very high, as previously reported, while our results suggest a considerable emergence of RAS mutations during disease progression. Thus, the dynamics of the genomic landscape in ctDNA may provide relevant information for the management of mCRC patients.

Delphi consensus for the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for third-line (3L) or subsequent treatment. The aim of this study is to know the opinion of experts on the most appropriate treatment options for mCRC in 3L and to clarify certain clinical decisions in Spain. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, a group of experts discussed the treatment in 3L of patients with mCRC and developed a questionnaire with 21 items divided into 5 sections. RESULTS: After 2 rounds, the 67 panelists consulted agreed on 17 items (81%). They considered that the main objective of 3L is to equally increase survival and improve patients' quality of life (QoL), but preferably the QoL. It was agreed that patients with mCRC in 3L prefer to receive active versus symptomatic treatment. Panelists considered trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) to be the best oral treatment available to them in 3L. In patients with MSI-H or dMMR and BRAF V600E, the panelists mostly prefer targeted treatments. Panelists agreed the use of a therapeutic sequence that not only increases outcomes but also allows patients to be treated later. Finally, it was agreed that FTD/TPI has a mechanism of action that allows it to be used in patients refractory to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil. CONCLUSION: The experts agreed with most of the proposed items on 3L treatment of mCRC, prioritizing therapeutic options that increase survival and preserve QoL, while facilitating the possibility that patients can continue to be treated later.

Recommendations for the optimal management of peritoneal metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: a TTD and GECOP-SEOQ expert consensus statement

Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur when cancer cells spread inside the abdominal cavity and entail an advanced stage of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prognosis, which is poor, correlates highly with tumour burden, as measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in specialized centres should be offered especially to patients with a low to moderate PCI when complete resection is expected. The presence of resectable metastatic disease in other organs is not a contraindication in well-selected patients. Although several retrospective and small prospective studies have suggested a survival benefit of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to CRS, the recently published phase III studies PRODIGE-7 in CRC patients with PM, and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP in resected CRC with high-risk of PM, failed to show any survival advantage of this strategy using oxaliplatin in a 30-min perfusion. Final results from ongoing randomized phase III trials testing CRS plus HIPEC based on mitomycin C (MMC) are awaited with interest. In this article, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD) and the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP), which is part of the Spanish Society of Surgical Oncology (SEOQ), reviewed the role of HIPEC plus CRS in CRC patients with PM. As a result, a series of recommendations to optimize the management of these patients is proposed (AU)

Post-Chemoradiation Metastatic, Persistent and Resistant Nodes in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Metrics and Their Impact on Long-Term Outcome.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term oncological progression pattern of locally advanced rectal cancer patients with post-neoadjuvant nodal metastatic disease (ypN+) and correlate potential prognostic features associated with proven radiochemoresistant nodal biology. METHODS: Individual patient data (100 variables) from a 20-year consecutive single-institution multidisciplinary experience (1995-2015), delivering multimodal therapy to rectal cancer patient candidates for radical treatment, including a neoadjuvant component and surgical resection with or without intraoperative radiotherapy followed by optional adjuvant chemotherapy. The ypN+ disease data was registered in the context of initial staging categories post-neoadjuvant T status (ypT). RESULTS: Data on 487 patients showed histologically confirmed diagnoses of metastatic nodal disease in 108 specimens (ypN+, 22.1). There was a significant age difference (p = 0.009) between the ypN groups: age ≥ 65 was 57.6% in pN0 and 43.5% in ypN+ and patients aged < 65 constituted 42.4% of pN0 and 56.5% of ypN+. According to the clinical stage there were statistically significant differences (p = 0.001) in the categories' distribution: ypN+ patients 10.8% were stage II and 89.2% were stage III. Univariant analysis on outcome variables showed statistically significant differences in overall survival at 7 years (63.8% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.016) disease-free survival (DFS) (78% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.000) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (93.6% vs. 84%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of nodal metastases (ypN+) after neoadjuvant therapy containing long-course pelvic irradiation severely impacts the long-term outcome for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and correlates with multiple clinical and therapeutic variable metrics. Implementation of local and systemic therapies should be adapted and intensified in relation to the finding of ypN+ category in surgical specimens.

An international comparative analysis and roadmap to sustainable biosimilar markets.

Background: Although biosimilar uptake has increased (at a variable pace) in many countries, there have been recent concerns about the long-term sustainability of biosimilar markets. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the sustainability of policies across the biosimilar life cycle in selected countries with a view to propose recommendations for supporting biosimilar sustainability. Methods: The study conducted a comparative analysis across 17 countries from North America, South America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Biosimilar policies were identified and their sustainability was assessed based on country-specific reviews of the scientific and grey literature, validation by industry experts and 23 international and local non-industry experts, and two advisory board meetings with these non-industry experts. Results: Given that European countries tend to have more experience with biosimilars and more developed policy frameworks, they generally have higher sustainability scores than the other selected countries. Existing approaches to biosimilar manufacturing and R&D, policies guaranteeing safe and high-quality biosimilars, exemption from the requirement to apply health technology assessment to biosimilars, and initiatives counteracting biosimilar misconceptions are considered sustainable. However, biosimilar contracting approaches, biosimilar education and understanding can be ameliorated in all selected countries. Also, similar policies are sometimes perceived to be sustainable in some markets, but not in others. More generally, the sustainability of the biosimilar landscape depends on the nature of the healthcare system and existing pharmaceutical market access policies, the experience with biosimilar use and policies. This suggests that a general biosimilar policy toolkit that ensures sustainability does not exist, but varies from country to country. Conclusion: This study proposes a set of elements that should underpin sustainable biosimilar policy development over time in a country. At first, biosimilar policies should guarantee the safety and quality of biosimilars, healthy levels of supply and a level of cost savings. As a country gains experience with biosimilars, policies need to optimise uptake and combat any misconceptions about biosimilars. Finally, a country should implement biosimilar policies that foster competition, expand treatment options and ensure a sustainable market environment.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022)

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022) (AU)

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban and rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban and rivaroxaban are two direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) recommended for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in an ambulatory setting. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of thromboprophylaxis with apixaban and rivaroxaban vs no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate-to-high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), Khorana score ≥ 2 points. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of Spain's National Health System (NHS) using an analytical decision model in the short-term (180 days) and a Markov model in the long-term (5 years). Transition probabilities were obtained from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban in adult ambulatory patients with cancer at risk for VTE, treated with chemotherapy (AVERT and CASSINI trials). The costs (€2,021) were taken from Spanish sources. The utilities of the model were obtained through the EQ-5D questionnaire. Deterministic (base case) and probabilistic (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban generated a cost per patient of €1,082 ± 187, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of €713-1,442, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €1,146 ± 218, with a 95% CI of €700-1,491, with a saving of €64 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs. Likewise, rivaroxaban provided a cost per patient of €993 ± 133, with a 95% CI of €748-1,310, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €872 ± 152, with a 95% CI of €602-1,250, with an additional expense of €121 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: In thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients, the use of apixaban and rivaroxaban generated similar costs compared to non-prophylaxis, without the difference found being statistically significant, with a clinically insignificant QALY gain.

Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population. FUNDING: HUTCHMED.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022).

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain. Metastatic disease is present in 15-30% of patients at diagnosis and up to 20-50% of those with initially localized disease eventually develop metastases. Recent scientific knowledge acknowledges that this is a clinically and biologically heterogeneous disease. As treatment options increase, prognosis for individuals with metastatic disease has steadily improved over recent decades. Disease management should be discussed among experienced, multidisciplinary teams to select the most appropriate systemic treatment (chemotherapy and targeted agents) and to integrate surgical or ablative procedures, when indicated. Clinical presentation, tumor sidedness, molecular profile, disease extension, comorbidities, and patient preferences are key factors when designing a customized treatment plan. These guidelines seek to provide succinct recommendations for managing metastatic CRC.

Recommendations for the optimal management of peritoneal metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: a TTD and GECOP-SEOQ expert consensus statement.

Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur when cancer cells spread inside the abdominal cavity and entail an advanced stage of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prognosis, which is poor, correlates highly with tumour burden, as measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in specialized centres should be offered especially to patients with a low to moderate PCI when complete resection is expected. The presence of resectable metastatic disease in other organs is not a contraindication in well-selected patients. Although several retrospective and small prospective studies have suggested a survival benefit of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to CRS, the recently published phase III studies PRODIGE-7 in CRC patients with PM, and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP in resected CRC with high-risk of PM, failed to show any survival advantage of this strategy using oxaliplatin in a 30-min perfusion. Final results from ongoing randomized phase III trials testing CRS plus HIPEC based on mitomycin C (MMC) are awaited with interest. In this article, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD) and the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP), which is part of the Spanish Society of Surgical Oncology (SEOQ), reviewed the role of HIPEC plus CRS in CRC patients with PM. As a result, a series of recommendations to optimize the management of these patients is proposed.

Expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the determination of biomarkers in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer.

Pancreatic cancer and biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis. In recent years, the development of new diagnostic techniques has enabled the identification of the main genetic alterations involved in the development of these tumours. Multiple studies have assessed the ability to predict response to treatment of certain biomarkers, such as BRCA in pancreatic cancer, IDH1 or FGFR2 in biliary tract cancer and microsatellite instability or NTRK fusions in an agnostic tumour fashion. In this consensus, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) reviewed the role played by these mutations in the process of carcinogenesis and their clinical implications. Based on their results, a series of recommendations are made to optimize the determination of these biomarkers and thus help standardize the diagnosis and treatment of these tumours.

Expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the determination of biomarkers in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer / Consenso de Expertos de la Sociedad Española de Patología y la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica sobre la determinación de biomarcadores en el cáncer de páncreas y vías biliares

Pancreatic cancer and biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis. In recent years, the development of new diagnostic techniques has enabled the identification of the main genetic alterations involved in the development of these tumours. Multiple studies have assessed the ability to predict response to treatment of certain biomarkers, such as BRCA in pancreatic cancer, IDH1 or FGFR2 in biliary tract cancer and microsatellite instability or NTRK fusions in an agnostic tumour fashion. In this consensus, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) reviewed the role played by these mutations in the process of carcinogenesis and their clinical implications. Based on their results, a series of recommendations are made to optimize the determination of these biomarkers and thus help standardize the diagnosis and treatment of these tumours.

El cáncer de páncreas y el de vías biliares son tumores de mal pronóstico. En los últimos años, el desarrollo de nuevas técnicas diagnósticas de biología molecular ha permitido conocer las principales alteraciones génicas implicadas en el desarrollo de estos tumores. Múltiples estudios han evaluado el carácter predictivo de respuesta a tratamiento de determinados biomarcadores, como BRCA en cáncer de páncreas, IDH1 y FGFR2 en tumores de vía biliar; y la inestabilidad de microsatélites y las fusiones de NTRK, para predecir la respuesta al tratamiento. En este consenso, un grupo de expertos seleccionado por la Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM) y la Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica (SEAP) ha revisado el papel que desempeñan estas mutaciones en el proceso de carcinogénesis y sus implicaciones clínicas. Como resultado, en este artículo se proponen una serie de recomendaciones para optimizar la determinación de estos biomarcadores, con el fin de fomentar la estandarización en el diagnóstico y el tratamiento de estos tumores.(AU)

Liquid Biopsy Detects Early Molecular Response and Predicts Benefit to First-Line Chemotherapy plus Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: PLATFORM-B Study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR is standard first-line therapy in RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but biomarkers of early response are clinically needed. We aimed to define the utility of ctDNA to assess early response in patients with mCRC receiving first-line anti-EGFR therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Prospective multicentric study of tissue patients with RAS wt mCRC treated with first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab undergoing sequential liquid biopsies. Baseline and early (C3) ctDNA were analyzed by NGS. Trunk mutations were assessed as surrogate marker of total tumor burden. RAS/BRAF/MEK/EGFR-ECD were considered mutations of resistance. ctDNA results were correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included. ctDNA was detected in 72% of patients at baseline and 34% at C3. Decrease in ctDNA trunk mutations correlated with progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.23; P = 0.001). RAS/BRAF were the only resistant mutations detected at C3. An increase in the relative fraction of RAS/BRAF at C3 was followed by an expansion of the RAS clone until PD, and was associated with shorter PFS (HR, 10.5; P < 0.001). The best predictor of response was the combined analysis of trunk and resistant mutations at C3. Accordingly, patients with "early molecular response" (decrease in trunk and decrease in resistant mutations) had better response (77.5% vs. 25%, P = 0.008) and longer PFS (HR, 0.18; P < 0.001) compared with patients with "early molecular progression" (increase in trunk and/or increase in resistant mutations). CONCLUSIONS: ctDNA detects early molecular response and predicts benefit to chemotherapy plus cetuximab. A comprehensive NGS-based approach is recommended to integrate information on total disease burden and resistant mutations. See related commentary by Eluri et al., p. 302.

Evolution of RAS Mutations in Cell-Free DNA of Patients with Tissue RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving First-Line Treatment: The PERSEIDA Study.

The serial analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) enables minimally invasive monitoring of tumor evolution, providing continuous genetic information. PERSEIDA was an observational, prospective study assessing the cfDNA RAS (KRAS/NRAS) mutational status evolution in first-line, metastatic CRC, RAS wild-type (according to baseline tumor tissue biopsy) patients. Plasma samples were collected before first-line treatment, after 20 ± 2 weeks, and at disease progression. One hundred and nineteen patients were included (102 received panitumumab and chemotherapy as first-line treatment-panitumumab subpopulation). Fifteen (12.6%) patients presented baseline cfDNA RAS mutations (n = 14 [13.7%], panitumumab subpopulation) (mutant allele fraction ≥0.02 for all results). No patients presented emergent mutations (cfDNA RAS mutations not present at baseline) at 20 weeks. At disease progression, 11 patients (n = 9; panitumumab subpopulation) presented emergent mutations (RAS conversion rate: 19.0% [11/58]; 17.7% [9/51], panitumumab subpopulation). In contrast, three (5.2%) patients presenting baseline cfDNA RAS mutations were RAS wild-type at disease progression. No significant associations were observed between overall response rate or progression-free survival and cfDNA RAS mutational status in the total panitumumab subpopulation. Although, in patients with left-sided tumors, a significantly longer progression-free survival was observed in cfDNA RAS wild-type patients compared to those presenting cfDNA RAS mutations at any time. Continuous evaluation of RAS mutations may provide valuable insights on tumor molecular dynamics that can help clinical practice.

A randomised phase 2 study comparing different dose approaches of induction treatment of regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients (REARRANGE trial).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the safety of two regorafenib dose-escalation approaches in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC and progression during or within 3 months following their last standard chemotherapy regimen were randomised to receive the approved dose of regorafenib of 160 mg QD (arm A) or 120 mg QD (arm B) administered as 3 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week off, or 160 mg QD 1 week on/1 week off (arm C). The primary end-point was the percentage of patients with G3/G4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in each arm. RESULTS: There were 299 patients randomly assigned to arm A (n = 101), arm B (n = 99), or arm C (n = 99); 297 initiated treatments (arm A n = 100, arm B n = 98, arm C n = 99: population for safety analyses). G3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 60%, 55%, and 54% of patients in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The most common G3/4 AEs were hypertension (19, 12, and 20 patients), fatigue (20, 14, and 15 patients), hypokalemia (11, 7, and 10 patients), and hand-foot skin reaction (8, 7, and 3 patients). Median overall survival was 7.4 (IQR 4.0-13.7) months in arm A, 8.6 (IQR 3.8-13.4) in arm B, and 7.1 (IQR 4.4-12.4) in arm C. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative regorafenib dosing schedules were feasible and safe in patients with mCRC who had been previously treated with standard therapy. There was a higher numerical improvement on the most clinically relevant AEs in the intermittent dosing arm, particularly during the relevant first two cycles. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02835924.

Neoadjuvant therapy impact in early pancreatic cancer: "bioborderline" vs. "non-bioborderline".

Backgrounds/Aims: To analyze the results of the neoadjuvant treatment of patients in our center with early pancreatic cancer. Methods: Eighty-four patients with early pancreatic cancer (I-II) were included, of which 59 were considered "bioborderline" (carbohydrate antigen [CA] 19-9 > 37 U/L), and 25 were considered "non-bioborderline" (CA19-9 < 37 U/L). The R0 resection rate, presence of negative nodes, survival, and recurrence rates were analyzed in two groups, the NEO group (neoadjuvant + surgery) and the non-NEO group (upfront surgery). Results: A 28.6% pathologic complete response was observed in the NEO group of the whole sample. The residual R0 was 85.7%, and nodes were negative in 78.6% of the patients in the NEO group of bioborderline patients. All non-bioborderline patients treated with neoadjuvant were R0, and no affected nodes were observed in any of them. The median overall survival (OS) in patients with elevated CA19-9 levels in the NEO group was 31.4 months vs. 13.1 months in the non-NEO (log-rank test p = 0.006), with a 62% relative reduction in the mortality rate (hazard ratio = 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.20-0.79; p = 0.008). The median OS in patients with normal CA19-9 levels in the NEO group was 65.9 months vs. 16.2 months in the non-NEO group, without statistically significant differences between the two but with a trend toward significance (log-rank test p = 0.08). Conclusions: A neoadjuvant strategy seemed to improve local control and the survival of patients with early pancreatic cancer, both those with elevated CA19-9 and normal marker levels.