Remote Monitoring and Data Collection for Decentralized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in a clinical trial, partly due to financial and logistic burdens, especially among underserved populations. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a substantial shift in the adoption of decentralized trial operations by pharmaceutical companies. Objective: To assess the current global state of adoption of decentralized trial technologies, understand factors that may be driving or preventing adoption, and highlight aspirations and direction for industry to enable more patient-centric trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition, composed of patient advocacy, industry, government regulator, and academic medical center representatives, developed a survey directed to global biopharmaceutical companies of the coalition from October 1 through December 31, 2022, with a focus on registrational clinical trials. The data for this survey study were analyzed between January 1 and 31, 2023. Exposure: Adoption of decentralized clinical trial technologies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey measured (1) outcomes of different remote monitoring and data collection technologies on patient centricity, (2) adoption of these technologies in oncology and all therapeutic areas, and (3) barriers and facilitators to adoption using descriptive statistics. Results: All 8 invited coalition companies completed the survey, representing 33% of the oncology market by revenues in 2021. Across nearly all technologies, adoption in oncology trials lags that of all trials. In the current state, electronic diaries and electronic clinical outcome assessments are the most used technology, with a mean (SD) of 56% (19%) and 51% (29%) adoption for all trials and oncology trials, respectively, whereas visits within local physician networks is the least adopted at a mean (SD) of 12% (18%) and 7% (9%), respectively. Looking forward, the difference between the current and aspired adoption rate in 5 years for oncology is large, with respondents expecting a 40% or greater absolute adoption increase in 8 of the 11 technologies surveyed. Furthermore, digitally enabled recruitment, local imaging capabilities, and local physician networks were identified as technologies that could be most effective for improving patient centricity in the long term. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings may help to galvanize momentum toward greater adoption of enabling technologies to support a new paradigm of trials that are more accessible, less burdensome, and more inclusive.

Modernize Precision Oncology With Decentralized Trial Tools.

This Viewpoint examines how modern precision oncology clinical trials, bolstered by decentralized trial tools, can enhance access to cancer treatments and reduce the burden of trial participation on clinics and participants.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Effect of a MUC5AC Antibody (NPC-1C) Administered With Second-Line Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel on the Survival of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) beyond first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), with such individuals commonly being treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Objective: To determine whether NPC-1C, an antibody directed against MUC5AC, might increase the efficacy of second-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced PDAC between April 2014 and March 2017 whose disease had progressed on first-line FOLFIRINOX. Eligible patients had tumors with at least 20 MUC5AC staining by centralized immunohistochemistry review. Statistical analysis was performed from April to May 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycle, with or without intravenous NPC-1C 1.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Pretreatment clinical variables were explored with Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: A total of 78 patients (median [range] age, 62 [36-78] years; 32 [41%] women; 9 [12%] Black; 66 [85%] White) received second-line treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 40) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C (n = 38). Median OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.5 months; P = .22) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. Median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 3.4 months (95% CI, 1.9-5.3 months; P = .80) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. The ORR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-19.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C group and 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-18.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. No differences in toxicity were observed between groups, except that grade 3 or greater anemia occurred more frequently in patients treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C than gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (39% [15 of 38] vs 10% [4 of 40]; P = .003). The frequency of chemotherapy dose reductions was similar in both groups (65% vs 74%; P = .47). Lower performance status, hypoalbuminemia, PDAC diagnosis less than or equal to 18 months before trial enrollment, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio less than 2.8, and CA19-9 greater than 2000 IU/mL were independently associated with poorer survival. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of advanced PDAC, NPC-1C did not enhance the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. These data provide a benchmark for future trials investigating second-line treatment of PDAC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01834235.

Survival of cancer survivors with a new pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Persons newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer and who have survived a previous cancer are often excluded from clinical trials, despite limited evidence about their prognosis. We examined the association between previous cancer and overall survival. METHODS: This US population-based cohort study included older adults (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with pancreas cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate stage-specific effects of previous cancer on overall survival, adjusting for sociodemographic, treatment, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Of 32,783 patients, 18.7% were previously diagnosed with another cancer. The most common previous cancers included prostate (29.0%), breast (18.9%), or colorectal (9.7%) cancer. More than half of previous cancers (53.9%) were diagnosed 5 or more years prior to pancreas cancer diagnosis or at an in situ or localized stage (47.8%). The proportions of patients surviving 1, 3, and 5 years after pancreas cancer were nearly identical for those with and without previous cancer. Median survival in months was as follows for those with and without previous cancer respectively: 7 versus 8 (Stage 0/I), 10 versus 10 (Stage II), 7 versus 7 (Stage III), and 3 versus 2 (Stage IV). Cox models indicated that patients with previous cancer had very similar or statistically equivalent survival to those with no previous cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Given nearly equivalent survival compared to those without previous cancer, cancer survivors newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer should be considered for inclusion in pancreas cancer clinical trials.

Genetic features and therapeutic relevance of emergent circulating tumor DNA alterations in refractory non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancers.

Acquired resistance to systemic treatments is inevitable in most cancers, but the genetic basis for this in many cancer types has remained elusive due to constraints in obtaining tissue specimens longitudinally. In the management of gastrointestinal cancers, molecular profiling is conventionally performed at a single time point, although serial evaluations may yield biological insights that inform treatment decisions. We characterize genetic changes in serial liquid biopsies which provide real-time snapshots of tumor genetics and heterogeneity in refractory non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancers, and determine the clinical utility of repeat circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. In a national cohort of 449 patients with pancreatic, biliary, esophagogastric, and hepatocellular cancers, resistance to conventional therapies is broadly associated with tumor evolution. Emergent ctDNA alterations only detectable at progression occurs in 63% of patients and are frequently associated with treatment actionability. Tumor mutation burden is dynamic in cancers undergoing treatment, but is not associated with time to progression. Objective tumor responses in a case series of patients receiving treatment matched to emergent alterations show that repeat liquid biopsies may have clinical benefit by expanding treatment options in advanced gastrointestinal cancers.

A qualitative study to explore the acceptability and usefulness of personalized biofeedback to motivate physical activity in cancer survivors.

Objective: Many cancer survivors do not meet recommended levels of exercise, despite the benefits physical activity offers. This study aimed to understand experiences of insufficiently active overweight/obese breast or colorectal cancer survivors, in efforts to (1) examine regular physical activity barriers, and (2) determine perceptions and acceptability of a remotely delivered physical activity intervention utilizing wearable sensors and personalized feedback messages. Methods: In-person and virtual small group interviews were conducted engaging overweight/obese cancer survivors (n = 16, 94% female, 94% breast cancer survivors) in discussions resulting in 314 pages of transcribed data analyzed by multiple coders. Results: All participants expressed needing to increase physical activity, identifying lack of motivation centering on survivorship experiences and symptom management as the most salient barrier. They indicated familiarity with activity trackers (i.e., Fitbit) and expressed interest in biosensors (i.e., continuous glucose monitors [CGMs]) as CGMs show biological metrics in real-time. Participants reported (1) personalized feedback messages can improve motivation and accountability; (2) CGM acceptability is high given survivors' medical history; and (3) glucose data is a relevant health indicator and they appreciated integrated messages (between Fitbit and CGM) in demonstrating how behaviors immediately affect one's body. Conclusions: This study supports the use of wearable biosensors and m-health interventions to promote physical activity in cancer survivors. Glucose-based biofeedback provides relevant and motivating information for cancer survivors regarding their daily activity levels by demonstrating the immediate effects of physical activity. Integrating biofeedback into physical activity interventions could be an effective behavioral change strategy to promote a healthy lifestyle in cancer survivors.

Ablative Radiation Therapy in Oligometastatic Pancreatic Cancer to Delay Polyprogression, Limit Chemotherapy, and Improve Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The oligometastatic state is observed in patients across many malignancies, with increased recognition regarding improved outcomes after local therapies. However, there is limited data specifically regarding pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We hypothesized that an oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (OPanc) phenotype would benefit from stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) to all active metastatic sites. Here, we report our institutional experience of SABR-treated OPanc to evaluate the feasibility of the approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of patients with synchronous or metachronous OPanc (1 to 5 metastases) who received SABR to all active metastatic sites was performed. We identified a comparable group of patients with similar metastatic burden, range of CA19-9 levels, and no progression for at least 5 months who did not receive SABR. We compared overall survival as the primary outcome, and polyprogression-free survival and time off chemotherapy as the secondary exploratory assessments. A third group presenting with stage IV pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and more than 5 distant lesions (polymetastatic) was identified to help define expected outcomes after polyprogression. RESULTS: Our study included 20 patients with OPanc receiving SABR and 21 who did not. SABR was delivered to 38 metastatic tumors. Out of the 20 SABR-treated OPanc patients, 17 (85%) had 6 or more months of time off chemotherapy, compared with 7 patients (33.3%) among the chemotherapy-treated group. Median polyprogression-free survival was 40 and 14 months (hazard ratio = 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.54; P = .0009), and overall survival was 42 and 18 months (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.53; P = .0003), for SABR- and chemotherapy-treated cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Management of OPanc with SABR as local regional therapy could improve outcomes in a selected population and warrants prospective evaluation.

Twitter Conversations About Pancreatic Cancer by Health Care Providers and the General Public: Thematic Analysis.

BACKGROUND:  There is a growing interest in the pattern of consumption of health-related information on social media platforms. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the content of discussions around pancreatic cancer on Twitter to identify subtopics of greatest interest to health care providers and the general public. METHODS:  We used an online analytical tool (Creation Pinpoint) to quantify Twitter mentions (tweets and retweets) related to pancreatic cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. Keywords, hashtags, word combinations, and phrases were used to identify mentions. Health care provider profiles were identified using machine learning and then verified by a human analyst. Remaining user profiles were classified as belonging to the general public. Data from conversations were stratified qualitatively into 5 domains: (1) prevention, (2) survivorship, (3) treatment, (4) research, and (5) policy. We compared the themes of conversations initiated by health care providers and the general public and analyzed the impact of the Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and announcements by public figures of pancreatic cancer diagnoses on the overall volume of conversations. RESULTS:  Out of 1,258,028 mentions of pancreatic cancer, 313,668 unique mentions were classified into the 5 domains. We found that health care providers most commonly discussed pancreatic cancer research (10,640/27,031 mentions, 39.4%), while the general public most commonly discussed treatment (154,484/307,449 mentions, 50.2%). Health care providers were found to be more likely to initiate conversations related to research (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.70-1.79, P<.001) and prevention (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.41-1.57, P<.001) whereas the general public took the lead in the domains of treatment (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.58-1.69, P<.001) and survivorship (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21, P<.001). Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month did not increase the number of mentions by health care providers in any of the 5 domains, but general public mentions increased temporarily in all domains except prevention and policy. Health care provider mentions did not increase with announcements by public figures of pancreatic cancer diagnoses. After Alex Trebek, host of the television show Jeopardy, received his diagnosis, general public mentions of survivorship increased, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's diagnosis increased conversations on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Health care provider conversations on Twitter are not aligned with the general public. Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month temporarily increased general public conversations about treatment, research, and survivorship, but not prevention or policy. Future studies are needed to understand how conversations on social media platforms can be leveraged to increase health care awareness among the general public.

A Propensity Score Analysis of Chemotherapy Use in Patients With Resectable Gallbladder Cancer.

Importance: Gallbladder cancer is uncommon but highly fatal. Surgery remains the only potentially curative treatment for localized or locoregionally advanced gallbladder cancer. The rate of use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in resectable gallbladder cancer is unknown. Objective: To assess factors associated with the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable gallbladder cancer and survival outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: The National Cancer Database was used to identify 6391 adults who underwent definitive surgical resection for gallbladder cancers between January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2016. Data analysis was performed from January 15 to February 15, 2020. Patients with localized or locoregionally advanced gallbladder cancers (ie, categories cTx-cT4, cN0-2, and cM0) were categorized as receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, or surgery alone. Categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test, with 1:3 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching based on neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Survival outcomes between groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The use and survival outcomes of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Results: Of 6391 patients who underwent definitive surgery for gallbladder cancer, 4559 were women (71.3%); median age was 68 (IQR, 59-77) years. A total of 3145 patients (49.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 3145 patients (49.2%) underwent surgery without chemotherapy, and 101 patients (1.6%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use was associated with treatment at an academic facility (61 patients [60%] vs 38 patients [38%] treated in a nonacademic facility; P < .001) and in those with private insurance (65 patients [65%] vs 11 patients [11%] with Medicaid insurance; P < .001). Surgery alone was frequently used in older patients (median age, 72 [IQR, 63-81] years vs 59 [IQR, 52-66] years in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy; P < .001), those with Medicare insurance (1925 patients [57%] vs 1438 patients [43%] with adjuvant chemotherapy; P < .001), and patients with a higher comorbidity index score (326 patients [62%] vs 197 patients [38%] with adjuvant chemotherapy; P < .001). Adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently than surgery in patients with node-positive cancer (1482 [67.2%] vs 53 [65.4%] vs 912 [49.7%]). On propensity score matching analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with longer survival than surgery alone (22 vs 18 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96); survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not statistically significant compared with surgery alone and adjuvant chemotherapy groups (27 months, HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04). However, in patients with node-positive gallbladder cancer, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with longer median overall survival (30 months [95% CI, 24-36 months] vs 14 months [95% CI, 11-17] in patients with surgery alone; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy was low in patients with surgically resected gallbladder cancers. Chemotherapy was used more frequently than surgery in lymph node-positive disease compared with lymph node-negative disease. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a survival advantage in resectable gallbladder cancer, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with increased survival in node-positive gallbladder cancers. These findings suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered in treatment of gallbladder cancer.

Importance of addressing malnutrition in cancer and implementation of a quality improvement project in a gastrointestinal cancer clinic.

Malnutrition is exceedingly common in cancer patients, with some of the highest rates seen in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Malnutrition and cachexia in cancer patients is associated with worse quality of life, poor treatment tolerance, and increased morbidity and mortality. The importance of early recognition of malnutrition in cancer patients is key, and numerous screening tools have been validated to aid practitioners in this diagnosis. In this paper, we summarize the importance of identifying and managing malnutrition in GI cancer patients as well as its impact on clinical outcomes. We then focus on presenting our own novel quality improvement project that aims to expand access to dietitian services in a GI cancer clinic at a large safety-net hospital system. Utilizing evidence-based quality improvement methodologies including the Model for Improvement and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, we increased the proportion of GI oncology patients seen by a dietitian from 5% to 20% from October 2018 to July 2019. In particular, we outline the challenges faced in the implementation process of a malnutrition screening tool built into the electronic medical record in an outpatient oncology clinic. We focus on the tool's ability to capture a greater number of patients with malnutrition and its clinical impact.

A Qualitative Examination of COVID-19's Impacts on Physical Activity and Perceptions of Remote Delivery Interventions.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic is correlated with decreased physical activity (PA). Transitioning to remote work may impact people's acceptability and preferences for remotely delivered behavioral interventions, including PA. The objective was to examine perceptions of COVID-19 impacts on PA engagement and motivation, and perspectives related to remotely delivered PA interventions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional small-group interview. SETTING: Harris County, Texas. Participants: Insufficiently active, overweight/obese adults (16 healthy adults [aged 25-52 years], and 7 cancer survivors [aged 50-74 years]). METHOD: Group discussion was guided by semi-structured questions. Audio-transcribed data (278 pages) was analyzed using Braun and Clarke's process centering identification, analysis, organization, description, and reports. RESULTS: Overall, participants expressed a decreased level of PA due to the pandemic. Difficulties (e.g., care-taking activities, working from home, and safety concerns) negatively affected motivation. Participants indicated high acceptability of remotely delivered PA interventions, with advantages of virtual technology features (e.g., did not have to maintain a gym membership) and even accountability in maintaining a PA routine (e.g., using virtual groups to engage in community support). CONCLUSION: Participants described COVID-19 negatively affects access to PA opportunities yet also expressed willingness to engage in remotely delivered PA interventions instead of in-person programs because of their COVID-19 experiences. Remote interventions can greatly increase accessibility and offer opportunities to provide personalized motivation and accountability that people need to be more physically active.

Age-dependent prognostic value of KRAS mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: The age-dependent prognostic impact of KRAS status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is unknown. Materials & Methods: We used the National Cancer Database to evaluate the survival by KRAS status for age-groups <50, 50-69 and ≥70, adjusting for relevant patient and tumor characteristics. Results: mCRC patients (n = 26,095; 33.5%) had KRAS status reported, and 11,338 of these patients (43.4%) had mutations in the KRAS gene. Patients with KRAS mutations had worse overall survival than wild-type KRAS patients. In age-groups <50 years (23 vs 29 months; p < 0.001) and 50-69 (21 vs 23.4 months; p < 0.001), KRAS mutations were significantly associated with worse survival, whereas in the ≥70-year age-group, there was no significant association (14 vs 14 months; p = 0.34). Conclusion: We conclude that the age of patients influences the prognostic value of KRAS mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Expression of Immuno-Oncologic Biomarkers Is Enriched in Colorectal Cancers and Other Solid Tumors Harboring the A59T Variant of KRAS.

The molecular heterogeneity of KRAS is well established, with a pool of variants comprising >75% of all known mutations; this pool includes mutations in classic codons 12, 13, and 61, as well as 146 and 117. In addition, there are rare variants that are more frequently encountered clinically due to the advances in next-generation sequencing and more widespread implementation of All-RAS sequencing over the past five years. We have previously identified a missense variant of KRAS, A59T, in a patient with CRC that was associated with a response to an epidermal growth factor inhibitor when added to chemotherapy, supporting the hypothesis that distinct biochemical impacts of different KRAS mutations may produce varied responses to targeted therapy. In this study, we explored a large genomic database comprising 17,909 cases of CRC to determine the prevalence of the A59T mutation and characterized the concurrent genomic alterations associated with this variant in more detail, particularly in relation to the expanding set of potential predictive immuno-oncologic biomarkers. We identified 14 cases of A59 mutations in this dataset (0.08% prevalence). We evaluated the prevalence of high tumor mutation burden (TMB), positive PD-L1 expression, and microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficiency (MSI-H/dMMR) using both next generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). The genomic features of pertinent signaling pathways were also described, including RAS pathway, chromatin remodeling, DDR, hedgehog signaling, PI3K, receptor tyrosine kinases, signal transduction, TGF-beta, TP53, and WNT. We uncovered a high level of association of predictive markers of responsiveness to checkpoint inhibition and potentially other forms of immunotherapy, with nearly half of all cases harboring microsatellite instability as assessed using NGS. A59T was also detected in 11 additional cancer types, most prominently in cases of gynecologic or other gastrointestinal sites of origin. This study provides supportive evidence that A59T, and possibly other similarly rare KRAS variants, co-occur with predictive biomarkers of response to immunotherapy.

Implementation of a Quality Improvement Project to Increase Access to Dietitian Services for Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer in a Safety-Net Hospital System.

PURPOSE: Rates of malnutrition are high in patients with GI cancer, leading to poor outcomes. The aim of our project was to increase the rate of documented dietitian assessment in patients with GI cancer at Parkland Health and Hospital System from 5% to 25%. METHODS: Three PDSA cycles were conducted after identifying barriers to dietitian services. A registered dietitian was assigned to the GI oncology clinic during the first cycle, an adapted Malnutrition Screening Tool was implemented through the electronic medical record during the second cycle, and clinical staff training was performed during the third cycle. New patients with GI cancer seen by the registered dietitian had weight, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and serum albumin recorded at initial visit and 3-month follow-up. Paired t tests were performed. Emergency department visits and hospital admissions were also recorded during this time. RESULTS: Through these interventions, the percentage of patients with GI cancer with documented assessment by the registered dietitian increased from 5.1% in October 2018 prior to our interventions to 21.8% in July 2019 and has sustained in the 15%-20% range thereafter. From May to July 2019, there were 63 new patients with GI cancer seen by a registered dietitian. No significant difference was observed in average difference in weight and serum albumin level at initial visit and 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: A nutrition-focused quality improvement project led to a more than three-fold increase in the rate of documented dietitian assessment in patients with GI cancer.

Namodenoson in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Child-Pugh B Cirrhosis: Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Namodenoson, an A3 adenosine-receptor agonist, showed promising results in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and moderate hepatic dysfunction (Child-Pugh B; CPB) in a phase I/II clinical study. This phase II study investigated namodenoson as second-line therapy in such patients. Patients were randomized 2:1 to twice a day (BID) namodenoson (25 mg; n = 50) or placebo (n = 28). The primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not met. Median OS was 4.1/4.3 months for namodenoson/placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-1.38; p = 0.46). Pre-planned subgroup analysis of CPB7 patients (34 namodenoson-treated, 22 placebo-treated) showed a nonsignificant improvement in OS/progression-free survival (PFS). OS: 6.9 versus 4.3 months; HR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.45-1.43, p = 0.46. PFS: 3.5 versus 1.9 months; HR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.51-1.55, p = 0.67 (log-rank test). The difference in 12-month OS was significant (44% versus 18%, p = 0.028). Response rates were determined in patients for whom ≥ 1 assessment post-baseline was available (34 namodenoson-treated, 21 placebo-treated). Partial response was achieved by 3/34 (8.8%) and 0/21 (0%) patients, respectively. Namodenoson was well-tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to that of the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported; no patients withdrew due to toxicity. In conclusion, namodenoson demonstrated a favorable safety profile and a preliminary efficacy signal in HCC CPB.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS: Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.