Alternating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone versus continuous gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel after induction treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (ALPACA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination. METHODS: ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment. FUNDING: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Subgroup analyses from patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer receiving trifluridine/tipiracil: results of the TALLISUR trial.

BACKGROUND: In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) of patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subsequently, the TALLISUR trial provided post-authorisation efficacy and safety data and patient-reported outcomes on quality of life (QoL) in a German patient cohort. The present analysis reports the final data on efficacy, safety and QoL and investigates the impact of baseline characteristics and associated prognostic subgroups on outcome. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-centre, Germany-wide, phase IV study, patients with pre-treated mCRC were given the choice to receive either FTD/TPI or best supportive care (BSC). To assess the primary endpoint, QoL, EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires were employed. Secondary endpoints included QoL assessed through EQ-5D-5L questionnaires, OS, PFS and safety. Additionally, 3 subgroups were defined according to a post-hoc analysis of the RECOURSE trial: best, good and poor prognostic characteristics (BPC, GPC, PPC). Patients with < 3 metastatic sites at inclusion and/or ≥ 18 months from diagnosis to inclusion were considered to have GPC. GPC patients without liver metastasis at inclusion were considered to have BPC. All remaining patients were considered to have PPC. RESULTS: Of 195 patients, 186 decided to receive FTD/TPI and 9 to receive BSC. The low number of patients in the BSC-arm did not allow statistically meaningful analyses. Treatment with FTD/TPI was associated with maintained QoL. For all patients, median OS was 6.9 months (95% CI 6.1 - 8.3) and for the defined subgroups (BPC n = 20 vs GPC n = 65 vs PPC n = 121) 12.2, 7.9 and 6.8 months (95% CI 6.0 - 18.2, 6.2 - 13.3, 5.4 - 8.1). The most frequent TEAEs were neutropenia (29.6%), anaemia (24.7%) and nausea (23.7%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients suffering from pre-treated mCRC with FTD/TPI was associated not only with prolonged survival and delayed progression, but also with maintained QoL. Independent of other baseline characteristics such as ECOG performance status and age, low metastatic burden and indolent disease were factors associated with favourable outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT-Number 2017-000292-83, first registration 19/06/2017.

Sequential therapy of refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer with 5-FU/LV/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) vs. 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin (OFF). The PANTHEON trial (AIO PAK 0116).

PURPOSE: In patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, this trial compares the efficacy of second-line therapy with FOLFIRI vs. OFF (1:1 randomisation) with cross-over to the vice-versa regimen as third-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary endpoint was PFS (progression-free survival: time from randomization until progression or death) of second-line therapy. The trial aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of FOLFIRI vs OFF (non-inferiority margin of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5, power of 80% and a significance level of 5%, 196 events needed). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival of third-line therapy and safety. The trial is registered with EudraCT Nr. 2016-004640-11. RESULTS: The trial was terminated with 60 evaluable (37 with FOLFIRI, 23 with OFF) patients due to insufficient recruitment. PFS of second-line therapy was 2.4 (95% CI 2.3-2.6) months with FOLFIRI vs 2.4 (95% CI 2.2-2.7) months with OFF (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.45-1.42, P = 0.43). OS was comparable between the arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.54-1.66), P = 0.84). Only 4 out of 28 (14%) patients receiving third-line therapy achieved a disease control (partial remission or stable disease). Both second-line regimens were well tolerated without new or unexpected safety signals being observed. CONCLUSION: The exploratory analysis of this early terminated trial suggests that FOLFIRI and OFF have similar efficacy ant toxicity as second-line therapy of PDAC after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Third-line therapy regardless of regimen does not provide satisfactory efficacy in this sequential treatment algorithm.

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Patient eligibility for trials with imaging response assessment at the time of molecular tumor board presentation.

PURPOSE: To assess the eligibility of patients with advanced or recurrent solid malignancies presented to a molecular tumor board (MTB) at a large precision oncology center for inclusion in trials with the endpoints objective response rate (ORR) or duration of response (DOR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1). METHODS: Prospective patients with available imaging at the time of presentation in the MTB were included. Imaging data was reviewed for objectifiable measurable disease (MD) according to RECIST v1.1. Additionally, we evaluated the patients with MD for representativeness of the identified measurable lesion(s) in relation to the overall tumor burden. RESULTS: 262 patients with different solid malignancies were included. 177 patients (68%) had MD and 85 (32%) had non-measurable disease (NMD) at the time point of MTB presentation in accordance with RECIST v1.1. MD was not representative of the overall tumor burden in eleven patients (6%). The main reasons for NMD were lesions with longest diameter shorter than 10 mm (22%) and non-measurable peritoneal carcinomatosis (18%). Colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma displayed the highest rates of MD (> 75%). In contrast, gastric cancer, head and neck malignancies, and ovarian carcinoma had the lowest rates of MD (< 55%). In case of MD, the measurable lesions were representative of the overall tumor burden in the vast majority of cases (94%). CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of cancer patients with advanced solid malignancies are not eligible for treatment response assessment in trials with endpoints ORR or DOR at the time of MTB presentation. The rate of patients eligible for trials with imaging endpoints differs significantly based on the underlying malignancy and should be taken under consideration during the planning of new precision oncology trials.

Toxicity-Induced Discontinuation of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Urothelial Cancer: 6-Year Experience from a Specialized Uro-Oncology Center.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have been established as the standard-of-care in various uro-oncological cancers. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are frequent, but their degree rarely leads to the discontinuation of immunotherapies. Unplanned permanent treatment discontinuation may negatively impact the outcomes of patients, but there are emerging data about a positive correlation between emergence of severe irAEs and therapeutic cancer responses. In this study, a retrospective analysis of patients treated for urothelial carcinoma (UC) with ICI-based immunotherapy was conducted. irAEs were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEs) and radiological responses according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECISTs). Out of 108 patients with metastatic urothelial cancer that underwent immunotherapy, 11 experienced a severe irAE that required permanent discontinuation of ICI therapy. The most frequent irAEs leading to discontinuation were hepatitis (n = 4), pneumonitis (n = 2), and gastritis or colitis (n = 2). Prior to discontinuation (R1), the radiological best response was complete remission (CR) in three patients, partial response (PR) in six, and stable disease (SD) in wo patients. After the discontinuation of ICI therapy (R2), the best responses were CR in six, PR in three, and SD in two patients. Following discontinuation, the majority of these patients showed a sustained treatment response, despite not receiving any cancer-specific treatment. The median time of response after discontinuation of ICI therapy was 26.0 (5.2-55.8) months. We propose accurate counseling and close follow-ups of patients following their discontinuation of ICI therapy due to irAEs, as responses can be durable and deep, and many patients do not require immediate subsequent therapies, even in urothelial cancer. More data are required to find predictors of the length of response to appropriately counsel patients.

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.

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

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

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

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

Adjuvant Treatment with S-1 in Patients after R0-Resection of Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach and Esophagogastric Junction: A Multicenter Phase I/II Feasibility Study (GMBH-STO-0114).

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

Unresectable biliary tract cancer: Current and future systemic therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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