Phase 1 trial of navitoclax and sorafenib in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors with hepatocellular carcinoma expansion cohort.

Navitoclax (ABT-263) is an oral BCL2 homology-3 mimetic that binds with high affinity to pro-survival BCL2 proteins, resulting in apoptosis. Sorafenib, an oral multi kinase inhibitor also promotes apoptosis and inhibits tumor angiogenesis. The efficacy of either agent alone is limited; however, preclinical studies demonstrate synergy with the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib. In this phase 1 study, we evaluated the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib in a dose escalation cohort of patients with refractory solid tumors, with an expansion cohort in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the continual reassessment method. Navitoclax and sorafenib were administered continuously on days 1 through 21 of 21-day cycles. Ten patients were enrolled in the dose escalation cohort and 15 HCC patients were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Two dose levels were tested, and the MTD was navitoclax 150 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Among all patients, the most common grade 3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (5 patients, 20%): there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range 1-36 cycles) and all patients were off study treatment at data cut off. Six patients in the expansion cohort had stable disease, and there were no partial or complete responses. Drug-drug interaction between navitoclax and sorafenib was not observed. The combination of navitoclax and sorafenib did not increase induction of apoptosis compared with navitoclax alone. Navitoclax plus sorafenib is tolerable but showed limited efficacy in the HCC expansion cohort. These findings do not support further development of this combination for the treatment of advanced HCC. This phase I trial was conducted under ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT01364051.

Tumor-Informed Circulating Tumor DNA for Minimal Residual Disease Detection in the Management of Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Recurrence after curative-intent treatment occurs in 20%-50% of patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer (CRC), underscoring the need for early detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Here, we examined the pattern of use of a tumor-informed ctDNA assay in CRC MRD monitoring in routine clinical practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of health records of patients with CRC who had at least one tumor-informed ctDNA assay from May 2019 through July 1, 2022. Recurrence was defined as radiographic evidence of disease. Descriptive characteristics of the cohort, ctDNA results, and subsequent interventions were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients included, the median age at diagnosis was 67 years, 46% were female, and 94% were White. At diagnosis, 10 patients had stage I, 23 stage II, 60 stage III, and 25 stage IV disease. Of 476 ctDNA assays performed, 70% were performed in patients who had recurrent disease most commonly to monitor the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and 16% resulted in a change in clinical decision making. There were 110 recurrences identified in 62 patients, as some patients experienced more than one recurrence over time. Compared with serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels, ctDNA results correlated better with radiologic imaging. CONCLUSION: Routine ctDNA monitoring for MRD detection has been adopted in clinical practice; however, 84% of ctDNA assays performed did not result in a change in clinical management. This suggests the need for further clinical research data to guide routine clinical use of ctDNA MRD testing in CRC.

Metastatic site and clinical outcome of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in the first-line setting.

PURPOSE: Only one-half of deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) demonstrate durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Given preclinical data indicating that liver metastases sequester activated CD8+ T cells from systemic circulation, we examined clinical outcome by metastatic site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of patients with d-MMR mCRCs treated at multiple centers in France (n = 66), we sought to validate data from a U.S. cohort, and performed pooled analysis (n = 104). All patients received first-line ICI monotherapy. Metastatic site was analyzed in relationship to tumor response (RECIST version 1.1), and with progression-free survival (PFS) by multivariable stratified Cox regression after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: Objective responses were achieved in 38/66 (58%) of patients in the validation cohort. Best tumor response included 13 (20%) complete responses (CR), 25 (38%) partial responses (PR), 16 (25%) stable disease, and 11 (17%) progressive disease (PD). One-year and 5-year PFS rates were 73% and 67%, respectively; 18 (27%) patients progressed during immunotherapy. Best tumor response was attenuated in patients with liver metastasis (P = 0.03). Presence of liver metastasis, but not other sites, was associated with significantly poorer PFS after adjustment for covariates (HRadj 2.82; 95%CI, 1.08-7.39; Padj=0.03). In a pooled analysis, liver metastasis remained significantly and independently associated with poorer PFS (HRadj 3.18; 95%CI, 1.52-6.67; Padj=0.002) and with attenuated tumor best response (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Metastasis to the liver, but not other sites, was validated as an independent factor associated with poorer response and survival after ICI treatment in d-MMR mCRCs. These data underscore the need for novel therapeutic strategies in these patients.

Plasma Assay of Cell-Free Methylated DNA Markers of Colorectal Cancer: A Tumor-Agnostic Approach to Monitor Recurrence and Response to Anticancer Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent therapy is costly and unreliable. Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) detected primary CRC and metastatic recurrence with high sensitivity and specificity in cross-sectional studies. This study evaluated using serial MDMs to detect recurrence and monitor the treatment response to anti-cancer therapies. METHODS: A nested case-control study was drawn from a prospective cohort of patients with CRC who completed curative-intent therapy for CRC of all stages. Plasma MDMs were assayed vis target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays, normalized to B3GALT6, and analyzed in combination with serum carcinoembryonic antigen to yield an MDM score. Clinical information, including treatment and radiographic measurements of the tumor burden, were longitudinally collected. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients, 18 had recurrence and 17 had no evidence of disease during the study period. The MDM score was positive in 16 out of 18 patients who recurred and only 2 of the 17 patients without recurrence. The MDM score detected recurrence in 12 patients preceding clinical or radiographic detection of recurrent CRC by a median of 106 days (range 90-232 days). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma MDMs can detect recurrent CRC prior to radiographic detection; this tumor-agnostic liquid biopsy approach may assist cancer surveillance and monitoring.

Selecting Optimal First-Line Treatment for Microsatellite Stable and Non-Mutated RAS/BRAF Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Standard frontline treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is cytotoxic chemotherapy plus a biologic agent such as an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or panitumumab) or anti-VEGF antibody (bevacizumab). Predictive biomarkers include mismatch repair (MMR) status, and RAS and BRAF mutation status; and important factors in treatment selection include primary tumor location, intent of therapy, and potential toxicity, as well as patient age, comorbidities, and patient preference. To date, single-, double-, or triple-agent cytotoxic chemotherapy all have important roles in appropriately selected patients, with the addition of anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR antibody therapy based on the relevant predictive biomarker. Data indicate that patients with proficient MMR, RAS/BRAF wt mCRC are candidates for an anti-EGFR antibody plus doublet chemotherapy if they have a left-sided primary tumor, or for anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) plus doublet or triplet chemotherapy if they have a right-sided primary tumor. Future studies may provide more predictive biomarkers to further personalize therapy for this heterogeneous disease.

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Completion of Genetic Testing and Incidence of Pathogenic Germline Mutation among Patients with Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Single Institution Analysis.

Over the past 20 years, rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as <50 years of age at diagnosis, have increased, with 16-25% associated with a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) resulting in a hereditary cancer syndrome. In the present study, we sought to further characterize PGVs observed in patients with eoCRC. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with a history of CRC referred for genetic counseling at Mayo Clinic Rochester between April 2019 and April 2022. Three hundred and three CRC patients were referred to medical genetics, including 124 with a history of eoCRC. Only 84 patients (68%) with eoCRC referred for genetic counseling completed genetic testing, with an average of 48 genes evaluated. PGVs were identified in 27.4% with eoCRC, including 8.3% with Lynch syndrome (LS). Other detected PGVs known to increase the risk of CRC included MUTYH (4.8%), CHEK2 (3.6%), APC, BMPR1A, and TP53 (1.3% each). Among those with aoCRC, 109 patients (61%) completed genetic testing, among which 88% had either a dMMR tumor, personal history of an additional LS malignancy, or family history of LS malignancy, with PGVs detected in 23% of patients. This study reinforces the importance for all patients with CRC, especially those with eoCRC, to undergo germline testing.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, gastric, duodenal and distal small bowel, biliary tract, pancreatic, colon, rectal, and anal cancer, comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies that impose a significant global burden. Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for several GI cancers, offering some patients durable responses and prolonged survival. Specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), either as monotherapies or in combination regimens, have gained tissue site-specific regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic disease and in the resectable setting. Indications for ICIs in GI cancer, however, have differing biomarker and histology requirements depending on the anatomic site of origin. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles compared with other systemic treatments that have long been the mainstay for GI cancer, such as chemotherapy. With the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of GI cancer. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the expert panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using ICIs to treat GI cancers, with topics including biomarker testing, therapy selection, and patient education and quality of life considerations, among others.

Patient-reported Adverse Events During Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Phase 2 Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trial (Alliance A021501).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate symptomatic adverse event (AE) rates among patients with pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy on clinical trial (A021501) using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). BACKGROUND: To date, pancreatic cancer clinical trials have measured AEs using standard physician reporting [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)]. Patient-reported symptomatic AEs have been incompletely characterized. METHODS: A021501 (December 31, 2016-January 1, 2019) randomized patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to 8 doses of mFOLFIRINOX (Arm 1) or 7 doses of mFOLFIRINOX+hypofractionated radiotherapy (Arm 2), followed by pancreatectomy and adjuvant FOLFOX6. Patients completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at baseline, on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle, and daily during radiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 126 patients, 96 (76%) initiated treatment and completed a baseline plus at least 1 postbaseline PRO-CTCAE assessment. Diarrhea and fatigue were the only symptomatic grade 3 or higher AEs identified in at least 10% of patients using CTCAE. At least 10% of all patients reported an adjusted PRO-CTCAE composite grade 3 AE during neoadjuvant treatment for 10 of 15 items: anxiety (10%), bloating of abdomen (16%), decreased appetite (18%), diarrhea (13%), dry mouth (21%), fatigue (36%), nausea (18%), generalized pain (16%), abdominal pain (21%), and problems tasting (32%). Decreased appetite was higher in Arm 2 than in Arm 1 ( P =0.0497); no other differences between study arms were observed. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic AEs during neoadjuvant therapy were common and were reported more frequently by patients using PRO-CTCAE than were recorded by clinicians using standard CTCAE.

Association of Age With Treatment-Related Adverse Events and Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: While the incidence of early-onset metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been increasing, studies on the age-related disparity in this group of patients are limited. Objective: To evaluate the association of age with treatment-related adverse events and survival in patients with mCRC and explore the potential underlying factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 1959 individuals. Individual data on 1223 patients with mCRC who received first-line fluorouracil and oxaliplatin therapy in 3 clinical trials, and clinical and genomic data of 736 patients with mCRC from Moffitt Cancer Center were used to assess genomic alterations and serve as an external validation cohort. All statistical analyses were conducted from October 1, 2021, through November 12, 2022. Exposures: Metastatic colorectal cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival outcomes and treatment-related adverse events were compared among patients in 3 age groups: younger than 50 (early onset), 50 to 65, and older than 65 years. Results: In the total population of 1959 individuals, 1145 (58.4%) were men. Among 1223 patients from previous clinical trials, 179 (14.6%) in the younger than 50 years group, 582 (47.6%) in the 50 to 65 years group, and 462 (37.8%) in the older than 65 years group had similar baseline characteristics except for sex and race. The younger than 50 years group had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.76; P < .001) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.84; P < .001) compared with the 50 to 65 years group after adjustment for sex, race, and performance status. Significantly shorter OS in the younger than 50 years group was confirmed in the Moffitt cohort. The younger than 50 years group had a significantly higher incidence of nausea and vomiting (69.3% vs 57.6% [50-65 years] vs 60.4% [>65 years]; P = .02), severe abdominal pain (8.4% vs 3.4% vs 3.5%; P = .02), severe anemia (6.1% vs 1.0% vs 1.5%; P < .001), and severe rash (2.8% vs 1.2% vs 0.4% P = .047). The younger than 50 years group also had earlier onset of nausea and vomiting (1.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.6 weeks; P = .01), mucositis (3.6 vs 5.1 vs 5.7 weeks; P = .05), and neutropenia (8.0 vs 9.4 vs 8.4 weeks; P = .04), and shorter duration of mucositis (0.6 vs 0.9 vs 1.0 weeks; P = .006). In the younger than 50 years group, severe abdominal pain and severe liver toxic effects were associated with shorter survival. The Moffitt genomic data showed that the younger than 50 years group had a higher prevalence of CTNNB1 mutation (6.6% vs 3.1% vs 2.3%; P = .047), ERBB2 amplification (5.1% vs 0.6% vs 2.3%; P = .005), and CREBBP mutation (3.1% vs 0.9% vs 0.5%; P = .05), but lower prevalence of BRAF mutation (7.7% vs 8.5% vs 16.7%; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 1959 patients, those with early-onset mCRC showed worse survival outcomes and unique adverse event patterns, which could be partially attributed to distinct genomic profiles. These findings may inform individualized management approaches in patients with early-onset mCRC.

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Comparing Oncologic Outcomes and Toxicity for Combined Modality Therapy vs. Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy for Previously Irradiated Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

No standard treatment paradigm exists for previously irradiated locally recurrent rectal cancer (PILRRC). Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) may improve oncologic outcomes and reduce toxicity compared with combined modality therapy (CMT). Eighty-five patients treated at Institution A with CIRT alone (70.4 Gy/16 fx) and eighty-six at Institution B with CMT (30 Gy/15 fx chemoradiation, resection, intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT)) between 2006 and 2019 were retrospectively compared. Overall survival (OS), pelvic re-recurrence (PR), distant metastasis (DM), or any disease progression (DP) were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier model, with outcomes compared using the Cox proportional hazards model. Acute and late toxicities were compared, as was the 2-year cost. The median time to follow-up or death was 6.5 years. Median OS in the CIRT and CMT cohorts were 4.5 and 2.6 years, respectively (p ≤ 0.01). No difference was seen in the cumulative incidence of PR (p = 0.17), DM (p = 0.39), or DP (p = 0.19). Lower acute grade ≥ 2 skin and GI/GU toxicity and lower late grade ≥ 2 GU toxicities were associated with CIRT. Higher 2-year cumulative costs were associated with CMT. Oncologic outcomes were similar for patients treated with CIRT or CMT, although patient morbidity and cost were lower with CIRT, and CIRT was associated with longer OS. Prospective comparative studies are needed.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Tucatinib plus trastuzumab for chemotherapy-refractory, HER2-positive, RAS wild-type unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (MOUNTAINEER): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: HER2 is an actionable target in metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed the activity of tucatinib plus trastuzumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory, HER2-positive, RAS wild-type unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: MOUNTAINEER is a global, open-label, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with chemotherapy-refractory, HER2-positive, RAS wild-type unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer at 34 sites (clinics and hospitals) in five countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, and the USA). Initially, the study was designed as a single-cohort study, which was expanded following an interim analysis to include more patients. Initially, patients were given tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) plus intravenous trastuzumab (8 mg/kg as an initial loading dose, then 6 mg/kg every 21 days; cohort A) for the duration of treatment (until progression), and after expansion, patients were randomly assigned (4:3), using an interactive web response system and stratified by primary tumour location, to either tucatinib plus trastuzumab (cohort B) or tucatinib monotherapy (cohort C). The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate per blinded independent central review (BICR) for cohorts A and B combined and was assessed in patients in the full analysis set (ie, patients with HER2-positive disease who received at least one dose of study treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043313, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2017, and Sept 22, 2021, 117 patients were enrolled (45 in cohort A, 41 in cohort B, and 31 in cohort C), of whom 114 patients had locally assessed HER2-positive disease and received treatment (45 in cohort A, 39 in cohort B, and 30 in cohort C; full analysis set), and 116 patients received at least one dose of study treatment (45 in cohort A, 41 in cohort B, and 30 in cohort C; safety population). In the full analysis set, median age was 56·0 years (IQR 47-64), 66 (58%) were male, 48 (42%) were female, 88 (77%) were White, and six (5%) were Black or African American. As of data cutoff (March 28, 2022), in 84 patients from cohorts A and B in the full analysis set, the confirmed objective response rate per BICR was 38·1% (95% CI 27·7-49·3; three patients had a complete response and 29 had a partial response). In cohorts A and B, the most common adverse event was diarrhoea (55 [64%] of 86), the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was hypertension (six [7%] of 86), and three (3%) patients had tucatinib-related serious adverse events (acute kidney injury, colitis, and fatigue). In cohort C, the most common adverse event was diarrhoea (ten [33%] of 30), the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (both two [7%]), and one (3%) patient had a tucatinib-related serious adverse event (overdose). No deaths were attributed to adverse events. All deaths in treated patients were due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: Tucatinib plus trastuzumab had clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity and favourable tolerability. This treatment is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-HER2 regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer and is an important new treatment option for chemotherapy-refractory HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Seagen and Merck & Co.

Association Between Survival and Metastatic Site in Mismatch Repair-Deficient Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-line Pembrolizumab.

Importance: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) shows frequent and durable responses to programmed cell death 1 blockade. While most of these tumors are sporadic and observed in older patients, first-line pembrolizumab data are limited to findings from the KEYNOTE-177 trial (A Phase III Study of Pembrolizumab [MK-3475] vs Chemotherapy in Microsatellite Instability-High [MSI-H] or Mismatch Repair Deficient [dMMR] Stage IV Colorectal Carcinoma). Objective: To investigate outcome with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy in mostly older patients with dMMR mCRC at a multisite clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included consecutive patients with dMMR mCRC who received pembrolizumab monotherapy between April 1, 2015, and January 1, 2022, at Mayo Clinic sites and the Mayo Clinic Health System. Patients were identified from review of electronic health records at the sites, which included the evaluation of digitized radiologic imaging studies. Intervention: Patients with dMMR mCRC received first-line pembrolizumab, 200 mg, every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS), which was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression model. Clinicopathological features, including metastatic site and molecular data (BRAF V600E and KRAS), were also analyzed along with tumor response rate, which was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Results: The study cohort included 41 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment initiation, 81 [76-86] years; 29 females [71%]) with dMMR mCRC. Of these patients, 30 (79%) had the BRAF V600E variant and 32 (80%) were classified as having sporadic tumors. Median (range) follow-up was 23 (3-89) months. Median (IQR) number of treatment cycles was 9 (4-20). Overall response rate was 49% (20 of 41 patients), including 13 patients (32%) with complete responses and 7 (17%) with partial responses. Median (IQR) PFS was 21 (95% CI, 6-39) months. Liver as a site of metastasis was associated with significantly poorer PFS vs nonliver metastasis (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.27-9.13; adjusted P = .01). Complete and partial responses were observed in 3 patients (21%) with liver metastasis vs 17 patients (63%) with nonliver metastases. Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were observed in 8 patients (20%), 2 of whom discontinued therapy; there was 1 treatment-related death. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found a clinically significant prolongation of survival in older patients with dMMR mCRC who were treated with first-line pembrolizumab in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, liver vs nonliver metastasis was associated with poorer survival in this patient population, which suggests that the metastatic site has implications for survival outcome.

Understanding Suboptimal Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as a novel class of anticancer therapy, can be more efficacious and less toxic than chemotherapy, but their clinical success is confined to certain tumor types. Elucidating their targets, mechanisms and scope of action, and potential synergism with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapies are critical to widen their clinical indications. Treatment response to an ICI targeting programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) is sought to be understood here by conducting a preplanned correlative analysis of a phase II clinical trial in patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). The cytolytic capacity of circulating immune cells in cancer patients using a novel ex vivo cytotoxicity assay is evaluated, and the utility of circulating biomarkers is investigated to predict and monitor the treatment effect of anti-PD-1. Baseline expression of Bim and NKG7 and upregulation of CX3CR1 in circulating T cells are associated with the clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 in patients with SBA. Overall, these findings suggest that the frequency and cytolytic capacity of circulating, effector immune cells may differentiate clinical response to ICIs, providing a strong rationale to support immune monitoring using patient peripheral blood.

Silmitasertib plus gemcitabine and cisplatin first-line therapy in locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A Phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of silmitasertib, an oral small molecule casein kinase 2 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (G+C) versus G+C in locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This work is a Phase 1b/2 study (S4-13-001). In Phase 2, patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days with G+C on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified intent-to-treat population (defined as patients who completed at least one cycle of silmitasertib without dose interruption/reduction) from both phases (silmitasertib/G+C n = 55, G+C n = 29). The response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The median PFS was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6, 14.7) versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.1, not evaluable [NE]) ( p  = 0.0496); 10-month PFS was 56.1% (95% CI, 38.8%, 70.2%) versus 22.2% (95% CI, 1.8%, 56.7%); and median overall survival was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.4, 25.7) versus 14.9 months (95% CI, 9.9, NE) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Overall response rate was 34.0% versus 30.8%; the disease control rate was 86.0% versus 88.5% with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Almost all silmitasertib/G+C (99%) and G+C (93%) patients reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C were diarrhea (70% versus 13%), nausea (59% vs. 30%), fatigue (47% vs. 47%), vomiting (39% vs. 7%), and anemia (39% vs. 30%). Twelve patients (10%) discontinued treatment because of TEAEs during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Silmitasertib/G+C demonstrated promising preliminary evidence of efficacy for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Culture media composition influences patient-derived organoid ability to predict therapeutic responses in gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUNDA patient-derived organoid (PDO) platform may serve as a promising tool for translational cancer research. In this study, we evaluated PDO's ability to predict clinical response to gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.METHODSWe generated PDOs from primary and metastatic lesions of patients with GI cancers, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma. We compared PDO response with the observed clinical response for donor patients to the same treatments.RESULTSWe report an approximately 80% concordance rate between PDO and donor tumor response. Importantly, we found a profound influence of culture media on PDO phenotype, where we showed a significant difference in response to standard-of-care chemotherapies, distinct morphologies, and transcriptomes between media within the same PDO cultures.CONCLUSIONWhile we demonstrate a high concordance rate between donor tumor and PDO, these studies also showed the important role of culture media when using PDOs to inform treatment selection and predict response across a spectrum of GI cancers.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNot applicable.FUNDINGThe Joan F. & Richard A. Abdoo Family Fund in Colorectal Cancer Research, GI Cancer program of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic SPORE in Pancreatic Cancer, Center of Individualized Medicine (Mayo Clinic), Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (Mayo Clinic), Incyte Pharmaceuticals and Mayo Clinic Hepatobiliary SPORE, University of Minnesota-Mayo Clinic Partnership, and the Early Therapeutic program (Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic).

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology.

Background: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). Patients and methods: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. Results: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. Conclusions: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.