Peritoneal metastases from primary appendiceal and colorectal carcinomas demonstrate distinct molecular identities on comprehensive tumor analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Published data comparing peritoneal metastases from appendiceal cancers (pAC) and colorectal cancers (pCRC) remain sparse. We compared pAC and pCRC using comprehensive tumor profiling (CTP). METHODS: CTP was performed, including next-generation sequencing and analysis of copy number variation (CNV), microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six pAC and 348 pCRC samples underwent CTP. The cohorts' age and gender were similar. pCRC demonstrated increased pathogenic variants (PATHs) in APC (48% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), ARID1A (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), BRAF (12% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), FBXW7 (7% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), KRAS (52% vs. 41%, p < 0.05), PIK3CA (15% vs. 2%, p < 0.01), and TP53 (53% vs. 23%, p < 0.01), and decreased PATHs in GNAS (8% vs. 31%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in CNV, fusion rate, or MSI. Median TMB was higher in pCRC (5.8 vs. 5.0 mutations per megabase, p = 0.0007). Rates of TMB-high tumors were similar (pAC 2.1% vs. pCRC 9.0%, p = 0.1957). pCRC had significantly more TMB-high tumors at lower thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a reduced overall TMB, pAC demonstrated mutations distinct from those seen in pCRC. These may serve as discrete biomarkers for future study.

Analysis of the Survival Impact of Postoperative Chemotherapy After Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy is a standard-of-care treatment for patients with gastric cancer. However, the impact of the postoperative chemotherapy (postCTX) component on overall survival (OS) is not well defined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2006-2014 was queried for patients who received preoperative chemotherapy (preCTX) and resection for gastric cancer. Analysis was performed to identify factors influencing receipt of postCTX. The impact of postCTX on OS was evaluated in propensity-matched groups. RESULTS: Among 3449 patients who received preCTX and resection for gastric cancer, 1091 (31.6%) received postCTX. Independent predictors of receiving postCTX were diagnosis after 2010 (odds ratio [OR] 1.985), distal tumor location (OR 1.348), and 15 or more lymph nodes examined (OR 1.214). Predictors of not receiving postCTX were older age (OR 0.985), comorbidity score higher than 1 (OR 0.592), and black race (OR 0.791). After propensity-matching (1091 per group), the median OS was 56.8 months for those who did receive postCTX versus 52.5 months for those who did not (p = 0.131). Subset analysis according to tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, number of lymph nodes evaluated, T and N class, and AJCC stage identified an improvement in OS for the patients with N1 disease who received postCTX compared with those who did not (79.6 vs 41.3 months; p = 0.025). However, no other subgroup had a significant survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Additional postCTX was administered to a minority of patients who received preCTX and gastrectomy for gastric cancer, and its influence on OS appeared to be limited. Future trials should aim to define patients who will benefit from postCTX.

The utilization and impact of adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant therapy and resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: does more really matter?

BACKGROUND: Although neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly administered to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the impact of additional adjuvant therapy (AT) following resection is not well defined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by R0 or R1 resection for PDAC. Factors influencing survival, including the receipt of AT were evaluated. RESULTS: Of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy and resection 680 (33.8%) received AT and 1331 (66.2%) did not. For R0 resected patients (n = 1800), lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.24, p = 0.034) and increasing N classification (N1: HR 1.27, p = 0.019; N2: HR 1.51, p = 0.004) were associated with increased risk of death while AT was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) (HR 0.88, p = 0.179). Following R1 resection (n = 211), AT was associated with reduced risk of death (HR 0.57, p = 0.038). Within propensity matched cohorts, median OS for patients receiving and not receiving AT was 32.1 and 30.0 months after R0 resection (p = 0.184), and 23.6 and 20.5 months after R1 resection (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated that AT did not yield OS benefit for patients who had neoadjuvant therapy and R0 resection and a statistically significant, although relatively short, improvement in OS for patients who underwent R1 resection.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of trametinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Trametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed. METHODS: Adults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.44; P=.453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n=103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.

A randomised phase 2 study combining LY2181308 sodium (survivin antisense oligonucleotide) with first-line docetaxel/prednisone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is partially characterised by overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins, such as survivin. In this phase 2 study, patients with metastatic CRPC (n=154) were randomly assigned (1:2 ratio) to receive standard first-line docetaxel/prednisone (control arm) or the combination of LY2181308 with docetaxel/prednisone (experimental arm). The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) for LY2181308 plus docetaxel. Secondary efficacy measures included overall survival (OS), several predefined prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-derived end points, and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scores. The median PFS of treated patients for the experimental arm (n=98) was 8.64 mo (90% confidence interval [CI], 7.39-10.45) versus 9.00 mo (90% CI, 7.00-10.09) in the control arm (n=51; p=0.755). The median OS for the experimental arm was 27.04 mo (90% CI, 19.94-33.41) compared with 29.04 mo (90% CI, 20.11-39.26; p=0.838). The PSA responses (≥ 50% PSA reduction), BPI, and FACT-P scores were similar in both arms. In the experimental arm, patients had a numerically higher incidence of grades 3-4 neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and sensory neuropathy. In conclusion, this study failed to detect a difference in efficacy between the two treatment groups.

Phase II trial of fulvestrant with metronomic capecitabine for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this phase II study, we explored efficacy and toxicity of combined endocrine and low-dose metronomic chemotherapy therapy consisting of fulvestrant and capecitabine in estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive, HER2-negative MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ≤ 1 previous hormonal treatment in the metastatic setting received an injection fulvestrant loading dose 500 mg on day 1, 250 mg on days 15 and 29 followed by 250 mg every 28 days along with continuous oral capecitabine in divided doses. The total fixed daily dose of capecitabine was either 1500 mg or 2000 mg, depending on the patient's weight (< 80 kg vs. ≥ 80 kg). Primary end points were PFS and TTP. Toxicity was assessed by continuous evaluations of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline in laboratory values. RESULTS: Forty-one women, with a mean age of 64.5 years, were enrolled. Patients completed a median of 11 monthly treatment cycles. Median PFS was 14.98 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.26-upper limit [UL] not estimated) and median TTP was 26.94 months (95% CI, 7.26-UL not estimated). Median overall survival was 28.65 months (95% CI, 23.95-UL not estimated). Treatment was well tolerated with < 10% Grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Overall, the most frequent AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, and nausea. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant with metronomic capecitabine demonstrates substantial activity in hormone receptor-positive MBC and is well tolerated. Combined chemoendocrine approaches should be further explored considering the low toxicity of the combination with meaningful TTP.

Treatment patterns and clinical effectiveness in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer after first-line docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in community settings is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment patterns, sequencing, and outcomes in patients receiving second- and third-line treatment after first-line docetaxel. METHODS: We used a community oncology database to identify patients who progressed after line 1 docetaxel (D) and received line 2 cabazitaxel (DC), abiraterone (DA), or other therapy (DO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan- Meier and Cox regression models. Line 3 included subsets DCA and DAC. RESULTS: Line 2 groups (DC = 60 patients, DA = 71, DO = 153) did not differ significantly on demographic and clinical characteristics or median PFS on docetaxel therapy. Cox regression for OS by line 2 groups showed increased risk for DA compared with DC (HR, 1.69; P = .026) when 24 untreated DO patients were excluded. A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed when the 24 untreated patients were included. Of patients receiving DC in line 2, a nominally greater proportion received A in line 3 (57%, 34 of 60 patients) than did patients who received DA in line 2 followed by C in line 3 (25%, 18 of 71). LIMITATIONS: There was a small sample for line 3, and unexamined confounds and selection biases in observational research. Conclusions Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively.