Standardized and quality-assured predictive PD-L1 testing in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

As a result of the high approval dynamics and the growing number of immuno-oncological concepts, the complexity of treatment decisions and control in the area of cancers of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction and stomach is constantly increasing. Since the treatment indication for PD-1 inhibitors that are currently approved in the European Union is often linked to the expression of PD-L1 (programmed cell death-ligand 1), the evaluation of tissue-based predictive markers by the pathologist is of crucial importance for treatment stratification. Even though the immunohistochemical analysis of the PD-L1 expression status is one of the best studied, therapy-relevant biomarkers for an immuno-oncological treatment, due to the high heterogeneity of carcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract, there are challenges in daily clinical diagnostic work with regard to implementation, standardization and interpretation of testing. An interdisciplinary group of experts from Germany has taken a position on relevant questions from daily pathological and clinical practice, which concern the starting material, quality-assured testing and the interpretation of pathological findings, and has developed recommendations for structured reporting.

Mismatch repair deficiency, chemotherapy and survival for resectable gastric cancer: an observational study from the German staR cohort and a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In a post hoc analysis of the MAGIC trial, patients with curatively resected gastric cancer (GC) and mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (MMRd) had better median overall survival (OS) when treated with surgery alone but worse median OS when treated with additional chemotherapy. Further data are required to corroborate these findings. METHODS: Between April 2013 and December 2018, 458 patients with curatively resected GC, including cancers of the esophagogastric junction Siewert type II and III, were identified in the German centers of the staR consortium. Tumor sections were assessed for expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 by immunohistochemistry. The association between MMR status and survival was assessed. Similar studies published up to January 2021 were then identified in a MEDLINE search for a meta-analysis. RESULTS: MMR-status and survival data were available for 223 patients (median age 66 years, 62.8% male), 23 patients were MMRd (10.3%). After matching for baseline clinical characteristics, median OS was not reached in any subgroup. Compared to perioperative chemotherapy, patients receiving surgery alone with MMRd and MMRp had a HR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.13-3.37, P = 0.63) and 1.44 (95% CI 0.66-3.13, P = 0.36), respectively. The meta-analysis included pooled data from 385 patients. Compared to perioperative chemotherapy, patients receiving surgery alone with MMRd had an improved OS with a HR of 0.36 (95% CI 0.14-0.91, P = 0.03), whereas those with MMRp had a HR of 1.18 (95% CI 0.89-1.58, P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Our data support a positive prognostic effect for MMRd in GC patients treated with surgery only and a differentially negative prognostic effect in patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy. MMR status determined by preoperative biopsies may be used as a predictive biomarker to select patients for perioperative chemotherapy in curatively resectable GC.

Margetuximab with retifanlimab as first-line therapy in HER2+/PD-L1+ unresectable or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: MAHOGANY cohort A.

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is globally treated with chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. Novel therapeutic strategies strive to not only optimize efficacy, but also limit toxicities. In MAHOGANY cohort A, margetuximab, an Fc-engineered, anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) was combined with retifanlimab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 mAb, in the first-line HER2-positive/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive GEA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MAHOGANY cohort A part 1 is a single-arm trial to evaluate margetuximab plus retifanlimab in patients with HER2 immunohistochemistry 3+, PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥1%), and non-microsatellite instability-high tumors. Primary objectives for cohort A were safety/tolerability and the confirmed objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: As of 3 August 2021, 43 patients were enrolled and received margetuximab/retifanlimab. Nine grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in eight (18.6%) patients and eight serious TRAEs in seven (16.3%) patients. There were no grade 4/5 TRAEs. Three patients discontinued margetuximab/retifanlimab because of immune-related adverse events. The ORR by independent assessment was 53% [21/40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 36.1-68.5)], with a median duration of response of 10.3 months (95% CI 4.6-not evaluable); disease control rate was 73% [29/40 (95% CI 56.1-85.4)]. The study sponsor discontinued the study in advance of the planned enrollment when it became apparent that the study design would no longer meet the requirements for drug approval because of recent advances in the treatment of GEA. CONCLUSIONS: The chemotherapy-free regimen of combined margetuximab/retifanlimab as first-line treatment in double biomarker-selected patients demonstrated a favorable toxicity profile compared with historical outcomes using chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. The ORR observed in this study compares favorably versus ORR observed with other chemotherapy-free approaches.

ESMO Congress 2021: highlights from the EORTC gastrointestinal tract cancer group's perspective.

There has been no major change of practice in gastrointestinal oncology at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) symposium 2021, but confirmation that immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has become standard of care in several indications. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Gastrointestinal Track Cancer Group has selected important phase II and III trials presented during the symposium across all gastrointestinal cancers as well as early reports on new drugs or new combinations that may change practice in the future.

Safety and efficacy of HER2 blockade by trastuzumab-based chemotherapy-containing combination strategies in HER2+ gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Since completion of the Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer study, trastuzumab with doublet chemotherapy (a fluoropyrimidine and a platinum) has been the gold-standard first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). The safety and efficacy of 23 studies of first-line trastuzumab plus doublet chemotherapy, without checkpoint inhibitors (n = 19) or with checkpoint inhibitors (n = 4), conducted in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ GEA, including phase II/III, prospective, and retrospective observational studies, were summarized. In studies without checkpoint inhibitors, the median duration of trastuzumab treatment ranged from 19.5 to 39.0 weeks and from 15.3 to 30.0 weeks for chemotherapy. In studies with checkpoint inhibitors, the median duration of pembrolizumab/trastuzumab/chemotherapy was 30 weeks, and 18 weeks for chemotherapy. In studies without checkpoint inhibitors, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of grade ≥3 ranged from 32% to 84%. Serious adverse events (SAEs) ranged from 15% to 39%. Adverse events resulting in discontinuation ranged from 0% to 30%. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 0%-9% of patients. In studies with checkpoint inhibitors, TEAEs of grade ≥3 were 57%. SAEs ranged from 31% to 38%. Adverse events resulting in discontinuation ranged from 5% to 24%. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 0%-3% of patients. In studies without checkpoint inhibitors, objective response rate (ORR) ranged from 39% to 82%, median progression-free survival (PFS) from 5.7 to 11.6 months, and median overall survival (OS) from 11.2 to 27.6 months. In studies with checkpoint inhibitors, ORR ranged from 39% to 86%, median PFS from 8.0 to 13.0 months, and median OS from 19.3 to 27.3 months. This review provides a historical benchmark on safety and efficacy of available first-line chemotherapy-based standard of care for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ GEA.

Cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition panitumumab for patients with non-resectable, advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell cancer: a prospective, open-label, randomised phase III AIO/EORTC trial (POWER).

BACKGROUND: Palliative chemotherapy of advanced oesophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) consists of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (CF) to target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab (P); chemotherapy enhanced overall survival (OS) in advanced colorectal or squamous cell head and neck cancers. With prospective serum and tumour biomarkers, we tested if P added to CF (CFP) improved OS in advanced ESCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with confirmed ESCC that was not curatively resectable or did not qualify for definitive radiochemotherapy, were randomised 1 : 1 to receive CF [cisplatin (C) 100 mg/m2 i.v., day 1; 5-fluorouracil (F) 1000 mg/m2 i.v., days 1-4] or CF plus P (9 mg/kg, i.v., day 1, each q3-week cycle) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board after 40, 70 and 100 patients who completed at least one cycle. After 53 enrolled patients, cisplatin was reduced from 100 mg/m2 to 80 mg/m2. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early based on interim efficacy results triggered by the third safety analysis: median OS (mOS) favoured CF over CFP, regardless of cisplatin dose [hazard ratio (HR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.98; P = 0.028]. In the final analysis, mOS was 10.2 versus 9.4 months for CF versus CFP, respectively (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.75; P = 0.43). One hundred (70.4%) of 142 patients in the safety population died, 51 (51.0%) with CFP. Most deaths were related to disease progression [44/49 (90%) deaths in CF versus 34/51 (67%) deaths in CFP]; objective responses [27/73 (37.0%)] were identical. The most common serious adverse events were kidney injury [3 (4.3%) versus 7 (9.7%)], general health deterioration [5 (7.1%) versus 5 (6.9%)] and dysphagia [4 (5.7%) versus 4 (5.6%)] in CF versus CFP, respectively. There were three (4.3%) and 17 (23.6%) common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade 5 events in CF versus CFP, respectively. Low soluble (s)EGFR levels were associated with better progression-free survival; sEGFR was induced under CFP. CONCLUSION: EGFR inhibition added to CF did not improve survival in unselected advanced ESCC patients. The results support further liquid biopsy studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01627379) and EudraCT (2010-020606-15).

Relation of cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and early tumor shrinkage in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the randomized phase 3 trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab-induced skin toxicity (Cet-ST) is positively associated with outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Besides its predictive relevance for targeted therapy, we investigated its prognostic impact with early tumor shrinkage (ETS) ≥20%, another on-treatment surrogate for clinical outcome in FIRE-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Retrospective data on Cet-ST that occurred during cycles 1-3 of treatment were correlated with efficacy endpoints, including ETS. To control for guarantee-time bias, only patients who had completed three or more treatment cycles were considered. RESULTS: Of 199 patients treated with FOLFIRI/Cet, 181 (91.0%) completed three or more treatment cycles. A significant survival benefit of FOLFIRI/Cet over FOLFIRI/Bev was only evident in patients developing Cet-ST grade 2-3 [41.0 versus 26.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.87; P < 0.001] compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.67-1.20; P = 0.48). Regarding prognosis, Cet-ST grade 2-3 (n = 75; 41.4%), compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (n = 106; 58.6%), was associated with prolonged overall survival (OS; HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91; P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, both Cet-ST (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.87; P = 0.003) and ETS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.74; P < 0.0001) were independently prognostic for OS. Absence of both Cet-ST grade ≥2 and ETS identified a subgroup of patients with very poor prognosis (median OS 15.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI was associated with superior OS compared with FOLFIRI/Bev only in patients developing Cet-ST grade ≥2. Regarding prognostic relevance, both Cet-ST and ETS were independent and early predictors of survival. The present analysis supports that a combined evaluation of on-treatment parameters such as Cet-ST and ETS may help to guide treatment of mCRC.

Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.

Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018. DESIGN: Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here. RESULTS: Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.

Vaccinia-based oncolytic immunotherapy Pexastimogene Devacirepvec in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure: a randomized multicenter Phase IIb trial (TRAVERSE).

Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) is a vaccinia virus-based oncolytic immunotherapy designed to preferentially replicate in and destroy tumor cells while stimulating anti-tumor immunity by expressing GM-CSF. An earlier randomized Phase IIa trial in predominantly sorafenib-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit. This randomized, open-label Phase IIb trial investigated whether Pexa-Vec plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) improved OS over BSC alone in HCC patients who failed sorafenib therapy (TRAVERSE). 129 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to Pexa-Vec plus BSC vs. BSC alone. Pexa-Vec was given as a single intravenous (IV) infusion followed by up to 5 IT injections. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP) and safety. A high drop-out rate in the control arm (63%) confounded assessment of response-based endpoints. Median OS (ITT) for Pexa-Vec plus BSC vs. BSC alone was 4.2 and 4.4 months, respectively (HR, 1.19, 95% CI: 0.78-1.80; p = .428). There was no difference between the two treatment arms in RR or TTP. Pexa-Vec was generally well-tolerated. The most frequent Grade 3 included pyrexia (8%) and hypotension (8%). Induction of immune responses to vaccinia antigens and HCC associated antigens were observed. Despite a tolerable safety profile and induction of T cell responses, Pexa-Vec did not improve OS as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure. The true potential of oncolytic viruses may lie in the treatment of patients with earlier disease stages which should be addressed in future studies. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01387555.

Relevance of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen for first-line treatment against metastatic colorectal cancer with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

PURPOSE: Increased baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum level is associated with inferior overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, limited data exist on its predictive relevance for targeted therapies. Therefore, we analysed its relevance in FIRE-3, a randomised phase III study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumour (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Herein, the impact of CEA on patient outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 356 (89.0%) were evaluable for CEA. High CEA (>10 ng/ml; N = 237) compared to low CEA (≤10 ng/ml; N = 119) was associated with shorter OS in the FOLFIRI/Bev arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50; P = 0.036), while no significant OS difference was observed in the FOLFIRI/Cet arm (HR = 1.07; P = 0.74). In patients with high CEA, FOLFIRI/Cet compared to FOLFIRI/Bev showed a greater OS benefit (HR = 0.56; P < 0.001) than in patients with low CEA (HR = 0.78; P = 0.30). Furthermore, FOLFIRI/Cet exhibited significantly superior objective response rate in patients with high CEA (odds ratio = 2.21; P = 0.006) in contrast to patients with low CEA (odds ratio = 0.90; P = 0.85). CONCLUSION: In patients with RAS-WT mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI/Bev, elevated CEA was associated with inferior survival in the bevacizumab arm, while this was not the case when cetuximab was applied. Comparison of OS and objective response rate according to treatment arms indicated that cetuximab was greatly superior to bevacizumab in patients with elevated CEA, while this effect was markedly lower and lost statistical significance in patients with low CEA.

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300.

Background: There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients and methods: Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4-2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.

Evaluation of survival across several treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of the FIRE-3 trial (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: We explored the impacts of sequential application of various treatment lines on survival kinetics. Therefore, differences in overall survival (OS) observed in FIRE-3 were investigated in the context of time and exposure to applied treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS analyses (stratified by treatment with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were performed according to time intervals as well as using a Cox model to define changes of hazard ratio (HR) over time. RESULTS: The fraction of patients with systemic treatment and time on treatment markedly decreases over treatment lines and time. OS evaluation by a Cox model indicated a trend towards a non-proportional hazard between treatment arms (P = 0.12/P = 0.09 for KRAS-intention-to-treat (ITT)/all-RAS wild-type populations, respectively). To improve the fit of the model, a change-point (point of curve separation) was estimated at 22.6 months (day 687) after randomisation. The HR between the two arms before 22.6 months was not significantly different from one. However, markedly different survival kinetics in favour of the cetuximab arm were apparent after the change-point (KRAS-ITT: P = 0.0018; HR, 0.60 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.83] and RAS: P = 0.0006; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.75]). CONCLUSION: The differences in OS favouring the cetuximab arm become apparent about 22.6 months after randomisation, indicating that only those patients who survive 22.6 months after randomisation benefit from the superiority of the cetuximab arm. When OS curves separate, only few patients receive active systemic treatment in short courses, suggesting that earlier treatment effects are responsible for later kinetics of survival curves.

Immunogenicity of oncolytic vaccinia viruses JX-GFP and TG6002 in a human melanoma in vitro model: studying immunogenic cell death, dendritic cell maturation and interaction with cytotoxic T lymphocytes.

Oncolytic virotherapy is an emerging immunotherapeutic modality for cancer treatment. Oncolytic viruses with genetic modifications can further enhance the oncolytic effects on tumor cells and stimulate antitumor immunity. The oncolytic vaccinia viruses JX-594-GFP+/hGM-CSF (JX-GFP) and TG6002 are genetically modified by secreting granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) or transforming 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC) into 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We compared their properties to kill tumor cells and induce an immunogenic type of cell death in a human melanoma cell model using SK29-MEL melanoma cells. Their influence on human immune cells, specifically regarding the activation of dendritic cells (DCs) and the interaction with the autologous cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) clone, was investigated. Melanoma cells were infected with either JX-GFP or TG6002 alone or in combination with 5-FC and 5-FU. The influence of viral infection on cell viability followed a time- and multiplicity of infection dependent manner. Combination of virus treatment with 5-FU resulted in stronger reduction of cell viability. TG6002 in combination with 5-FC did not significantly strengthen the reduction of cell viability in this setting. Expression of calreticulin and high mobility group 1 protein (HMGB1), markers of immunogenic cell death (ICD), could be detected after viral infection. Accordingly, DC maturation was noted after viral oncolysis. DCs presented stronger expression of activation and maturation markers. The autologous CTL clone IVSB expressed the activation marker CD69, but viral treatment failed to enhance cytotoxicity marker. In summary, vaccinia viruses JX-GFP and TG6002 lyse melanoma cells and induce additional immunostimulatory effects to promote antitumor immune response. Further investigation in vivo is needed to consolidate the data.

Impact of BRAF and RAS mutations on first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab: analysis of the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

BACKGROUND: RAS and BRAF mutations have been identified as negative prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer. Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with RAS-mutant tumours needs to be further evaluated. Whether to treat patients with BRAF-mutant tumours with either bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies remains unclear. METHODS: Patients treated within the FIRE-3 trial were retrospectively tested for BRAF and RAS mutations using formalin fixated paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumour material applying pyrosequencing for KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 mutations as far as for BRAF mutations. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimation and differences were expressed using the log-rank test. Overall response rate (ORR) was compared using Fisher's exact test. Data from a central independent radiological response evaluation were used to calculate early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR). RESULTS: Overall, 188 patients with RAS-mutant tumours and 48 with BRAF-mutant tumours were identified. In BRAF-mutant patients, ORR was numerically higher in the cetuximab versus the bevacizumab arm (52% versus 40%), while comparable results were achieved for progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, p = 0.56) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.79, p = 0.45). RAS mutation was associated with a trend towards lower ORR (37% versus 50.5%, p = 0.11) and shorter PFS (7.4 versus 9.7 months; HR 1.25; p = 0.14) in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab, but OS was comparable (19.1 versus 20.1 months; HR 1.05; p = 0.73), respectively. ETS identified subgroups sensitive to cetuximab-based treatment in both BRAF- (9/17) and RAS-mutant (18/48) patients and was associated with significantly longer OS. DpR was comparable between both treatment arms in RAS- and BRAF-mutant patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In BRAF- and RAS-mutant patients, cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based treatment had comparable survival times. ETS represents an early parameter associated with the benefit from anti-EGFR, while this was not the case with vascular endothelial growth factor A blockade.

[HER2 testing in gastric cancer : Results of a meeting of German experts]. / HER2-Testung beim Magenkarzinom : Ergebnisse eines deutschen Expertentreffens.

Valid HER2 testing is essential for the optimal care of patients with HER2-positive gastric cancer and the correct use of first-line treatment. Although all cases of breast cancer are routinely tested for the HER2 status, HER2 testing in gastric cancer has still not become part of the routine and is usually only done upon request by the therapist. An interdisciplinary group of German experts has taken on the challenges of HER2 testing in gastric cancer as an opportunity to address essential aspects and questions on the practical use of HER2 testing in this indication from the perspective of pathologists and therapists. The recommendations made in this article reflect the consensus of all participants and correspond to their opinions and long-term experience.

[ASCO-update 2015 - highlights of the 51. meeting of the american society of clinical oncology/ASCO 2015]. / ASCO-Update 2015 - Neuigkeiten vom 51. Meeting der American Society of Clinical Oncology/ASCO 2015.

The field of gastrointestinal oncology is rapidly developing, on the one hand through the identification of novel molecular targets and therapeutic principles, on the other hand through the establishment and improvement of multidisciplinary treatment strategies. The following manuscript summarizes the most important trial results of the ASCO Meeting 2015 for gastrointestinal cancers. Besides trials on perioperative treatment of esophageal-, pancreatic- and colon cancer, we will present impressive data on new therapeutic strategies such as immunotherapy in gastric-, liver and microsatellite instable colorectal cancer. The trials will be put into context by the authors.

High-definition endoscopy with iScan and Lugol's solution for the detection of inflammation in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: histologic evaluation in comparison with a control group.

Nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) is commonly diagnosed in patients with symptoms of reflux. The aim of the present study was to determine whether high-definition endoscopy (HD) plus equipped with the iScan function or chromoendoscopy with Lugol's solution might permit the differentiation of NERD patients from those without reflux symptoms, proven by targeted biopsies of endoscopic lesions. A total of 100 patients without regular intake of proton pump inhibitors and with a normal conventional upper endoscopy were prospectively divided into NERD patients and controls. A second upper endoscopy was performed using HD+ with additional iScan function and then Lugol's solution was applied. Biopsy specimens were taken from the gastroesophageal junction in all patients. A total of 65 patients with reflux symptoms and 27 controls were included. HD(+) endoscopy with iScan revealed subtle mucosal breaks in 52 patients; the subsequent biopsies confirmed esophagitis in all cases. After Lugol's solution, 58 patients showed mucosal breaks. Sensitivity for the iScan procedure was 82.5%, whereas that for Lugol's solution was 92.06%. Excellent positive predictive values of 100% and 98.3%, respectively, were noted. The present study suggests that the majority of patients with NERD and typical symptoms of reflux disease can be identified by iScan or Lugol's chromoendoscopy as minimal erosive reflux disease (ERD) patients.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer is an uncommon cancer with a poor outcome. We assembled data from the National Cancer Research Institute (UK) ABC-02 study and 10 international studies to determine prognostic outcome characteristics for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: Multivariable analyses of the final dataset from the ABC-02 study were carried out. All variables were simultaneously included in a Cox proportional hazards model, and backward elimination was used to produce the final model (using a significance level of 10%), in which the selected variables were associated independently with outcome. This score was validated externally by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis using the independent international dataset. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were included from the ABC-02 study and 753 from the international dataset. An overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) Cox model was derived from the ABC-02 study. White blood cells, haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, neutrophils, gender, and performance status were considered prognostic for survival (all with P < 0.10). Patients with metastatic disease {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.02]} and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 had worse survival [HR 2.24 (95% CI 1.53-3.28)]. In a dataset restricted to patients who received cisplatin and gemcitabine with ECOG PS 0 and 1, only haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, and neutrophils were associated with PFS and OS. ROC analysis suggested the models generated from the ABC-02 study had a limited prognostic value [6-month PFS: area under the curve (AUC) 62% (95% CI 57-68); 1-year OS: AUC 64% (95% CI 58-69)]. CONCLUSION: These data propose a set of prognostic criteria for outcome in advanced biliary tract cancer derived from the ABC-02 study that are validated in an international dataset. Although these findings establish the benchmark for the prognostic evaluation of patients with ABC and confirm the value of longheld clinical observations, the ability of the model to correctly predict prognosis is limited and needs to be improved through identification of additional clinical and molecular markers.

Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme.

BACKGROUND: Since sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 once weekly, first 7-weeks+1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks+1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Gemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P=0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P=0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P=0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRß expression correlated with longer PFS. CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.