A phase II study of cabozantinib and pembrolizumab in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas resistant or refractory to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (mGEA) progress on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Novel approaches to overcome resistance to ICI in mGEA are needed. Cabozantinib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor thought to enhance the immunomodulatory effects of ICI. This study evaluated the combination of cabozantinib and pembrolizumab in ICI refractory or resistant mGEA. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, single-arm, single institution, and phase II study in patients with mGEA. Patients had progressed on ICI and/or had PD-L1 CPS score ≤10%. Cabozantinib dose was 40 mg p.o. daily on days 1-21 of a 21-day cycle, with pembrolizumab 200 mg i.v. on day 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS-6). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. Median age 58 years (24-87), female (n = 14), ECOG 0/1 = 13/14, GC/GEJ = 16/11, and non-Hispanic White/Hispanic/Asian = 12/8/7. The primary endpoint was met. After a median follow-up of 31.4 months (range 3.3-42.5), PFS-6 was 22.2% (95% CI 9.0-39.0). The median PFS and OS are 2.3 months (95% CI 1.7-4.1) and 5.5 months (3.1-14.0), respectively. The most common mutations were TP53 (78.3%) and CDH1/PIK3CA/CTNNB1 (17.4% each). The most common grade (G) treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were diarrhea (25.9%), fatigue (18.5%), hypertension, and muscle cramps (14.8% each). G3-4 TRAE were seen in n = 3 patients (hypertension, thromboembolic event, esophageal perforation; each n = 1). No G5 was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cabozantinib to pembrolizumab shows clinical benefit in ICI-resistant or refractory mGEA with a tolerable safety profile. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04164979. IRB Approved: UCI 18-124, University of California Irvine IRB#20195426.).

A case report of challenges in distinguishing gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma from testicular germ cell tumor: Insights for improved diagnosis with gene expression profiling.

Gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma is a rare form of gastroesophageal cancer. We present a case of a 38-year-old man with no significant medical history who was diagnosed with gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma but initially misdiagnosed with a testicular germ cell tumor, given the elevated alpha-feto protein and poorly differentiated pathology. We will elaborate on the importance of gene expression profiling in modern oncology to better define the tumor of origin in patients with cancer of unknown primary origin, how it helped us to diagnose gastroesophageal junction hepatoid adenocarcinoma and how it can help identify potential additional therapeutic targets in some cases. Due to the rarity of this subtype of gastroesophageal junction cancer there is a lack of standard therapeutic options, and we will discuss the most commonly used treatment regimens. The patient underwent three lines of antineoplastic therapy and unfortunately passed after 51 weeks of follow-up.

Case Report: A complete pathologic response in pancreatic cancer with squamous cell differentiation.

Primary pancreatic malignancies are mostly composed of the adenocarcinoma histological subtype. However, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) accounts for approximately 0.5%-1% of all malignant pancreatic cancers. Because of the rarity of SCC of the pancreas, guideline-directed treatment is lacking, treatment response is difficult to access, and treatment options are poorly defined. Here, we report a case of a 65-year-old man diagnosed with pancreatic carcinoma with dominant squamous cell differentiation, who achieved complete pathologic response (CPR) after treatment with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel every 14 days for six cycles and who continues to lead a high quality of life 7 months later. To our knowledge, this is the first case of CPR in a case of SCC of the pancreas. To highlight the ambiguity and the need for further studies, we also performed a narrative review analyzing recent cases and compared them to our case.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

Durable Responses in Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma on Sequential Dual-agent Immunotherapy After Progressing on Single-agent Immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Biliary tract tumors have a poor prognosis despite advancements in targeted therapies. More recent studies have started to investigate the use of combination immunotherapy in advanced biliary cancers. However, currently, there are no clinical trials investigating the use of dual-agent immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a sequential treatment after patients have progressed on single-agent immunotherapy. In this case series, we discussed 3 patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma who have an objective response to dual-agent immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab after having disease progression on pembrolizumab and multiple other failed lines of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case series, including 3 patients treated at the University of California, Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, was completed. RESULTS: Although none of the 3 patients had microsatellite instability or high tumor-mutation burden and were not necessarily predicted to have a response to dual-agent immunotherapy, all 3 patients had an objective radiographic and/or tumor-marker response to a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: This case series serves as proof of the concept that sequential immunotherapy can be beneficial after progression on single-agent immunotherapy for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma. This study can also serve as the foundation to build further tests on the true effectiveness and ideal duration of sequential therapy with dual immunotherapy agents.

BRCA-Mutated Pancreatic Cancer: From Discovery to Novel Treatment Paradigms.

The discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the 1990s revolutionized the way we research and treat breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. In the case of pancreatic cancers, germline mutations occur in about 10-20% of patients, with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 being the most common. BRCA genes are critical in DNA repair pathways, particularly in homologous recombination, which has a serious impact on genomic stability and can contribute to cancerous cell proliferation. However, BRCA1 also plays a fundamental role in cell cycle checkpoint control, ubiquitination, control of gene expression, and chromatin remodeling, while BRCA2 also plays a role in transcription and immune system response. Therefore, mutations in these genes lead to multiple defects in cells that may be utilized when treating cancer. BRCA mutations seem to confer a prognostic benefit with an improved overall survival due to differing underlying biology. These mutations also appear to be a predictive marker, with patients showing increased sensitivity to certain treatments, such as platinum chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors. Olaparib is currently indicated for maintenance therapy in metastatic PDAC after induction with platinum-based chemotherapy. Resistance has been found to these therapies, and with a 10.8% five-year OS, novel therapies are desperately needed.

Correction: Phase II Study Evaluating 2 Dosing Schedules of Oral Foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054014.].

Financial Toxicity of Cancer Care: An Analysis of Financial Burden in Three Distinct Health Care Systems.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of cancer care is a source of significant distress for patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to understand factors associated with financial toxicity in three distinct care systems. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients in three care systems, Stanford Cancer Institute (SCI), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC), from October 2017 to May 2019. We assessed demographic factors, employment status, and out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) and administered the validated COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted linear regression models to analyze factors associated with financial toxicity. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four of 578 patients (77%) completed the entire COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity tool and were included in the analysis. Most respondents at SCI were White, with annual household income (AHI) > $50,000 USD and Medicare insurance. At the VAPAHCS, most were White, with AHI ≤ $50,000 USD and insured by the Veterans Administration. At SCVMC, most were Asian and/or Pacific Islander, with AHI ≤ $25,000 USD and Medicaid insurance. Low AHI (P < .0001), high OOPCs (P = .003), and employment changes as a result of cancer diagnosis (P < .0001) were associated with financial toxicity in the pooled analysis. There was variation in factors associated with financial toxicity by site, with employment changes significant at SCI, OOPCs at SCVMC, and no significant factors at the VAPAHCS. CONCLUSION: Low AHI, high OOPCs, and employment changes contribute to financial toxicity; however, there are variations based on site of care. Future studies should tailor financial toxicity interventions within care delivery systems.

Medical oncology management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma 2019: a reality check.

In terms of global cancer-related deaths, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has the fourth highest mortality rate. Up until 2017, treatment of advanced HCC was largely limited to sorafenib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with little to no success in the development of alternative treatment options. However, in the past two years, there has been an unprecedented increase in both the number and type of treatment options available for HCC. As of 2019, the US FDA has approved four oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two immune checkpoint inhibitors, and one anti-angiogenesis antibody for the treatment of HCC. Even with this new variety, systemic treatment of advanced HCC remains largely unsatisfactory, and the median survival rate stands at approximately one year. The expected breakthrough of using immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC did not materialize in 2019. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in conjunction with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors or anti-angiogenesis medications is the current clinical research trend, the results of which are eagerly anticipated. Despite limited progress in survival, HCC research is currently experiencing a period of growth and innovation, and there is hope for significant advances in the treatment of advanced HCC as the field continues to develop.

MAVERICC, a Randomized, Biomarker-stratified, Phase II Study of mFOLFOX6-Bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI-Bevacizumab as First-line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: MAVERICC compared the efficacy and safety of modified leucovorin/5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (mFOLFOX6-BV) with leucovorin/5-fluorouracil/irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI-BV) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Patients and Methods: MAVERICC was a global, randomized, open-label, phase II study. Primary objectives were to assess associations between (i) excision repair cross-complementing 1 (ERCC1) expression with progression-free survival (PFS), and (ii) plasma VEGF A (VEGF-A) with PFS in patients with previously untreated mCRC receiving mFOLFOX6-BV or FOLFIRI-BV. Before randomization, patients were stratified by tumoral ERCC1/ß-actin mRNA expression level and region. RESULTS: Of 376 enrolled patients, 188 each received mFOLFOX6-BV and FOLFIRI-BV. PFS and overall survival (OS) were comparable between FOLFIRI-BV and mFOLFOX6-BV, with numerically higher PFS [HR = 0.79; 95% CI (confidence interval): 0.61-1.01; P = 0.06] and OS (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04; P = 0.09) observed for FOLFIRI-BV. In the high ERCC1 subgroup, PFS and OS were comparable between treatment groups (PFS, HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.56-1.26; P = 0.40; OS, HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.51-1.26; P = 0.33). Across treatment groups, high plasma VEGF-A levels (>5.1 pg/mL) were observed with shorter PFS (HR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.53; P = 0.17) and significantly shorter OS (HR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.20-2.24; P < 0.01) versus low levels (≤5.1 pg/mL). Safety findings for FOLFIRI-BV or mFOLFOX6-BV were comparable with those reported previously. CONCLUSIONS: First-line FOLFIRI-BV and mFOLFOX6-BV had comparable PFS and OS, similar to results in patients with high baseline tumor ERCC1 levels. There were no new safety signals with these bevacizumab-containing regimens.

A Phase 2 Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial of Imexon Plus Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Chemotherapy-naïve Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Imexon is a cyanoaziridine-derived iminopyrrolidone which has synergistic cytotoxicity with gemcitabine. A phase 1 study of the combination demonstrated good tolerance with encouraging clinical activity and thus we conducted this randomized phase II study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, metastatic, treatment-naive pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized 1:1 to receive gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m days 1, 8, and 15 with either imexon, 875 mg/m or placebo days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and response rate. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized, 72 to the imexon containing arm and 70 to the placebo arm. Patients in the imexon arm received an average of 3.6 cycles (range, 1 to 23) compared with 4.4 (range, 1 to 21) in the placebo arm. There was no increased rate of ≥grade 3 toxicity in the imexon arm. Seven patients had objective responses in the imexon arm (13.7%), whereas 9 did in the placebo arm (17%). In the imexon arm, 23 patients had ≥50% reduction in CA 19-9 from baseline (33%), whereas 22 did in the placebo arm (31.4%). The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months in the imexon arm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.1 m) and 3.8 months in the placebo arm (95% CI, 2.2-4.7 m), P=0.504. The median overall survival time in the imexon arm was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.7 m) as compared with 6.8 m (95% CI, 4.9-8.5 m) in the placebo arm, P=0.6822. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of imexon and gemcitabine does not result in improved outcome as initial therapy of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Phase II Trial Using a Combination of Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Celecoxib with Concurrent Radiation for Newly Diagnosed Resectable Rectal Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Colorectal cancers exhibit a high level of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression with strong preclinical rationale for improved clinical outcomes with COX-2 inhibition. Celecoxib is a COX-2 inhibitor and we have shown that it can be safely combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin as part of neoadjuvant treatment with radiation therapy (RT) in rectal cancer.There was a significant improvement in skin toxicity with this combination as compared with historical data. Considering the field has moved on to single-agent capecitabine, we believe future trials with capecitabine and celecoxib hold potential. BACKGROUND: Improved survival is seen among patients with rectal cancer who achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression is increased in gastrointestinal malignancies and it may serve as a target to enhance pathologic response. A trial combining chemoradiation and COX-2 inhibition was conducted to evaluate the pCR rate, surgical outcomes, survival, and treatment toxicity. METHODS: Patients with resectable (T3-4, N1-2) rectal cancer within 12 cm of the anal verge were included in this phase II clinical trial. The neoadjuvant treatment consisted of capecitabine 850 mg/m2 b.i.d. Monday through Friday for 5 weeks, weekly oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenous (IV), celecoxib 200 mg b.i.d. daily, along with concurrent 45 gray radiation therapy in 25 fractions. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was pCR: 31% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16%-50%). Secondary endpoints were surgical downstaging (SD): 75% (95% CI: 57%-89%) and sphincter-sparing surgery (SSS): 56% (95% CI: 38%-74%). Common grade >3 toxicities were diarrhea and abnormal liver function tests (9% each). Grade 0 and 1 toxicities included radiation dermatitis (59% and 34%, respectively) and proctitis (63% and 28%, respectively). At 3 years, disease-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 84% (95% CI: 65%-93%) and 94% (95% CI: 77%-98%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemoradiation with celecoxib in rectal cancer was well tolerated and demonstrated high rates of pCR, SD, and SSS. Improvement in skin toxicity (34% grade 1 and no grade 3/4) as compared with historical results (43%-78% grade 3/4) seems to be a significant improvement with addition of celecoxib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

INST OX-05-024: first line gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and erlotinib for primary hepatocellular carcinoma and bile duct cancers: a multicenter Phase II trial.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) incidence is increasing in the USA. Gemcitabine (G) and oxaliplatin (O) are active in HCC and biliary duct cancer (BDC). Erlotinib (E) is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with known activity against both. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of the combination G+O+E. Patients with either of the two diagnosis were treated in a phase II trial. Simons 2 stage design was used. A disease-control rate (DCR), complete response (CR) + partial response (PR)+ stable disease (SD) at 24 weeks of ≤20% and >40% (P0 and P1 of 0.2 and 0.4, respectively) were set as undesirable (null) and desirable results. 26 HCC and 7 BDC patients were accrued. In HCC, 1 PR, 10 SD, and 9 PDs were seen. DCR in HCC was 42%. Among seven (7) patients with BDC, one patient was not evaluable; one achieved a long lasting PR, and five patients had SD and DCR was 86%. Median overall survival (OS) times and progression-free survivals (PFS) were 196 and 149 days in HCC and 238 days and not reached in BDC. PFS at 26 weeks in HCC was 41% and at 21 weeks in BDC was 60%. Grade 3 toxicities in >5% of patients were fatigue (12.9%), neutropenia (9.6%), thrombocytopenia (9.6%), and diarrhea (6.4%). G+O+E exceeded both preset P0a and P1 of the primary objective with a PFS of 41% at 26 weeks for HCC and preliminary BDC data may warrant further investigations.

Phase II Trial of Sorafenib in Combination with Capecitabine in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: INST 08-20.

LESSONS LEARNED: There continues to be a lack of systemic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); sorafenib and, very recently, regorafenib are the only approved options. There exists a potential to combine sorafenib with chemotherapeutic agents shown to be active in HCC, such as capecitabine, safely.Good tumor response was observed, with objective improvement in a few patients seldom seen by single agent sorafenib; however, because of the limited number of patients, meaningful conclusions on survival cannot be drawn. BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the currently approved first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Capecitabine has antitumor activity in hepatobiliary cancers. The combination of the two, if tolerated, could possibly improve antitumor response, and survival. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC ineligible for locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2, Child-Pugh class A or B-7 cirrhosis, hemoglobin ≥8.5 g/dL, platelets ≥50,000/µL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥1,500 cells/µL, and serum creatinine of ≤2.0 mg/dL were recruited. All subjects received a combination of sorafenib and capecitabine, on a 14-day 7-days on 7-days off schedule. The primary end point was safety and secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and disease control rate. RESULTS: A total of 15 out of 47 patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 64 years (56-79) and 77% were male. With a median follow-up of 12 months, median OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-23.4). Disease control rate was 77% (complete response 8%, partial response 8%, and stable disease 61%). Common adverse events were as follows: (a) thrombocytopenia (64%); (b) anemia (14%); (c) hypophosphatemia (21%); (d) hypomagnesemia (14%); (e) hyperbilirubinemia (21%); (f) increased aspartate transaminase (AST) (14%); (g) hand-foot syndrome (21%); and (h) deep vein thrombosis (21%). CONCLUSION: At tolerable doses, the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine seems an active and safe palliative treatment for HCC in class A and B-7 patients with cirrhosis. The small sample size does not allow comparison with single-agent sorafenib.

(90)Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan with or without low-dose gemcitabine: A phase Ib study in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer after two or more prior therapies.

BACKGROUND: For patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, there are no approved or established treatments beyond the 2nd line. A Phase Ib study of fractionated radioimmunotherapy was undertaken in this setting, administering (90)Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan (yttrium-90-radiolabelled humanised antibody targeting pancreatic adenocarcinoma mucin) with or without low radiosensitising doses of gemcitabine. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with three (2-7) median prior treatments were treated on Arm A (N=29, (90)Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan, weekly 6.5 mCi/m(2)doses×3, plus gemcitabine, weekly 200 mg/m(2) doses×4 starting 1 week earlier) or Arm B (N=29, (90)Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan alone, weekly 6.5 mCi/m(2)doses×3), repeating cycles after 4-week delays. Safety was the primary endpoint; efficacy was also evaluated. RESULTS: Cytopaenias (predominantly transient thrombocytopenia) were the only significant toxicities. Fifty-three patients (27 Arm A, 26 Arm B, 91% overall) completed ⩾1 full treatment cycles, with 23 (12 Arm A, 11 Arm B; 40%) receiving multiple cycles, including seven (6 Arm A, 1 Arm B; 12%) given 3-9 cycles. Two patients in Arm A had partial responses by RECIST criteria. Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) appeared improved in Arm A versus B (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29-0.86; P=0.017, log-rank) and the median OS for Arm A versus Arm B increased to 7.9 versus 3.4 months with multiple cycles (HR 0.32, P=0.004), including three patients in Arm A surviving >1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical studies of (90)Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan combined with low-dose gemcitabine appear feasible in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients beyond 2nd line and a Phase III trial of this combination is now underway in this setting.

A Phase I Protocol of Hydralazine and Valproic Acid in Advanced, Previously Treated Solid Cancers.

Smokers experience aberrant gene promoter methylation in their bronchial cells, which may predispose to the development of neoplasia. Hydralazine is a DNA demethylating agent, and valproic acid is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, and both have modest but synergistic anticancer activity in vitro. We conducted a phase I trial combining valproic acid and hydralazine to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of hydralazine in combination with a therapeutic dose of valproic acid in patients with advanced, unresectable, and previously treated solid cancers. Twenty females and nine males were enrolled, with a median age of 57 years and a median ECOG performance status of 0. Grade 1 lymphopenia and fatigue were the most common adverse effects. Three subjects withdrew for treatment-related toxicities occurring after the DLT observation period, including testicular edema, rash, and an increase in serum lipase accompanied by hyponatremia in one subject each. A true MTD of hydralazine in combination with therapeutic doses of valproic acid was not reached in this trial, and the planned upper limit of hydralazine investigated in this combination was 400 mg/day without grade 3 or 4 toxicities. A median number of two treatment cycles were delivered. One partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria was observed, and five subjects experienced stable disease for 3 to 6 months. The combination of hydralazine and valproic acid is simple, nontoxic, and might be appropriate for chemoprevention or combination with other cancer treatments. This trial supports further investigation of epigenetic modification as a new therapeutic strategy.

Sorafenib-Induced Grade Four Hepatotoxicity in a Patient with Recurrent Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST): A Case Report and Review of Literature.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor is a rare mesenchymal tumor. Sorafenib is an effective medication in these tumors based on two phase II clinical trials and a retrospective analysis. We report a rare case of a 57-year-old male with acute hepatotoxicity from sorafenib. He was treated conservatively with IV fluids and prednisolone. Liver function tests improved over 2 months. We conclude that sorafenib could cause life-threatening hepatotoxicity and patients taking sorafenib need to be closely monitored.

Phase II study evaluating 2 dosing schedules of oral foretinib (GSK1363089), cMET/VEGFR2 inhibitor, in patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

PURPOSE: The receptors for hepatocyte and vascular endothelial cell growth factors (MET and VEGFR2, respectively) are critical oncogenic mediators in gastric adenocarcinoma. The purpose is to examine the safety and efficacy of foretinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting MET, RON, AXL, TIE-2, and VEGFR2 receptors, for the treatment of metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Foretinib safety and tolerability, and objective response rate (ORR) were evaluated in patients using intermittent (240 mg/day, for 5 days every 2 weeks) or daily (80 mg/day) dosing schedules. Thirty evaluable patients were required to achieve alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.2 to test the alternative hypothesis that single-agent foretinib would result in an ORR of ≥ 25%. Up to 10 additional patients could be enrolled to ensure at least eight with MET amplification. Correlative studies included tumor MET amplification, MET signaling, pharmacokinetics and plasma biomarkers of foretinib activity. RESULTS: From March 2007 until October 2009, 74 patients were enrolled; 74% male; median age, 61 years (range, 25-88); 93% had received prior therapy. Best response was stable disease (SD) in 10 (23%) patients receiving intermittent dosing and five (20%) receiving daily dosing; SD duration was 1.9-7.2 months (median 3.2 months). Of 67 patients with tumor samples, 3 had MET amplification, one of whom had SD. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 91% of patients. Rates of hypertension (35% vs. 15%) and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (23% vs. 8%) were higher with intermittent dosing. In both patients with high baseline tumor phospho-MET (pMET), the pMET:total MET protein ratio decreased with foretinib treatment. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that few gastric carcinomas are driven solely by MET and VEGFR2, and underscore the diverse molecular oncogenesis of this disease. Despite evidence of MET inhibition by foretinib, single-agent foretinib lacked efficacy in unselected patients with metastatic gastric cancer.