Impact of KRASG12 mutations on survival with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of the phase III SUNLIGHT trial.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), KRAS mutations are often associated with poorer survival; however, the prognostic impact of specific point mutations is unclear. In the phase III SUNLIGHT trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus FTD/TPI alone. We assessed the impact of KRASG12 mutational status on OS in SUNLIGHT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the global, open-label, randomized, phase III SUNLIGHT trial, adults with mCRC who had received no more than two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 1 : 1 to receive FTD/TPI alone or FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab. In this post hoc analysis, OS was assessed according to the presence or absence of a KRASG12 mutation in the overall population and in patients with RAS-mutated tumors. RESULTS: Overall, 450 patients were analyzed, including 302 patients in the RAS mutation subgroup (214 with a KRASG12 mutation and 88 with a non-KRASG12RAS mutation). In the overall population, similar OS outcomes were observed in patients with and without a KRASG12 mutation [median 8.3 and 9.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.4]. Similar OS outcomes were also observed in the subgroup analysis of patients with a KRASG12 mutation versus those with a non-KRASG12RAS mutation (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.4). FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab improved OS compared with FTD/TPI alone irrespective of KRASG12 mutational status. Among patients with a KRASG12 mutation, the median OS was 9.4 months with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab versus 7.2 months with FTD/TPI alone (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93), and in patients without a KRASG12 mutation, the median OS was 11.3 versus 7.1 months, respectively (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a KRASG12 mutation had no detrimental effect on OS among patients treated in SUNLIGHT. The benefit of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab over FTD/TPI alone was confirmed independently of KRASG12 status.

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 24th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2022.

This article summarises expert discussion on the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 24th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, July 2022. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to ensure an optimal diagnosis and staging of HCC, planning of curative and therapeutic options, including surgical, embolisation, ablative strategies, or systemic therapy. Furthermore, in many patients with HCC, underlying liver cirrhosis represents a challenge and influences the therapeutic options.

Sex and gender perspectives in colorectal cancer.

Historically women were frequently excluded from clinical trials and drug usage to protect unborn babies from potential harm. As a consequence, the impact of sex and gender on both tumour biology and clinical outcomes has been largely underestimated. Although interrelated and often used interchangeably, sex and gender are not equivalent concepts. Sex is a biological attribute that defines species according to their chromosomal makeup and reproductive organ, while gender refers to a chosen sexual identity. Sex dimorphisms are rarely taken into account, in either preclinical or clinical research, with inadequate analysis of differences in outcomes according to sex or gender still widespread, reflecting a gap in our knowledge for a large proportion of the target population. Underestimation of sex-based differences in study design and analyses has invariably led to 'one-drug' treatment regimens for both males and females. For patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), sex also has an impact on the disease incidence, clinicopathological features, therapeutic outcomes, and tolerability to anticancer treatments. Although the global incidence of CRC is higher in male subjects, the proportion of patients presenting right-sided tumours and BRAF mutations is higher among females. Concerning sex-related differences in treatment efficacy and toxicity, drug dosage does not take into account sex-specific differences in pharmacokinetics. Toxicity associated with fluoropyrimidines, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies has been reported to be more extensive for females with CRC than for males, although evidence about differences in efficacy is more controversial. This article aims to provide an overview of the research achieved so far into sex and gender differences in cancer and summarize the growing body of literature illustrating the sex and gender perspective in CRC and their impact in relation to tumour biology and treatment efficacy and toxicity. We propose endorsing research on how biological sex and gender influence CRC as an added value for precision oncology.

Establishment of patient-derived tumor organoids to functionally inform treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients tend to have modest benefits from molecularly driven therapeutics. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) represent an unmatched model to elucidate tumor resistance to therapy, due to their high capacity to resemble tumor characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used viable tumor tissue from two cohorts of patients with mCRC, naïve or refractory to treatment, respectively, for generating PDTOs. The derived models were subjected to a 6-day drug screening assay (DSA) with a comprehensive pipeline of chemotherapy and targeted drugs against almost all the actionable mCRC molecular drivers. For the second cohort DSA data were matched with those from PDTO genotyping. RESULTS: A total of 40 PDTOs included in the two cohorts were derived from mCRC primary tumors or metastases. The first cohort included 31 PDTOs derived from patients treated in front line. For this cohort, DSA results were matched with patient responses. Moreover, RAS/BRAF mutational status was matched with DSA cetuximab response. Ten out of 12 (83.3%) RAS wild-type PDTOs responded to cetuximab, while all the mutant PDTOs, 8 out of 8 (100%), were resistant. For the second cohort (chemorefractory patients), we used part of tumor tissue for genotyping. Four out of nine DSA/genotyping data resulted applicable in the clinic. Two RAS-mutant mCRC patients have been treated with FOLFOX-bevacizumab and mitomycin-capecitabine in third line, respectively, based on DSA results, obtaining disease control. One patient was treated with nivolumab-second mitochondrial-derived activator of caspases mimetic (phase I trial) due to high tumor mutational burden at genotyping, experiencing stable disease. In one case, the presence of BRCA2 mutation correlated with DSA sensitivity to olaparib; however, the patient could not receive the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using CRC as a model, we have designed and validated a clinically applicable methodology to potentially inform clinical decisions with functional data. Undoubtedly, further larger analyses are needed to improve methodology success rates and propose suitable treatment strategies for mCRC patients.

Plasmatic BRAF-V600E allele fraction as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with BRAF combinatorial treatments.

BACKGROUND: Combination of a BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) and an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), with or without a MEK inhibitor (MEKi), improves survival in BRAF-V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over standard chemotherapy. However, responses are heterogeneous and there are no available biomarkers to assess patient prognosis or guide doublet- or triplet-based regimens. In order to better characterize the clinical heterogeneity observed, we assessed the prognostic and predictive role of the plasmatic BRAF allele fraction (AF) for these combinations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective discovery cohort including 47 BRAF-V600E-mutant patients treated with BRAFi-anti-EGFR ± MEKi in clinical trials and real-world practice was evaluated. Results were validated in an independent multicenter cohort (n= 29). Plasmatic BRAF-V600E AF cut-off at baseline was defined in the discovery cohort with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). All patients had tissue-confirmed BRAF-V600E mutations. RESULTS: Patients with high AF have major frequency of liver metastases and more metastatic sites. In the discovery cohort, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4.4 and 10.1 months, respectively. Patients with high BRAF AF (≥2%, n = 23) showed worse PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 2.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.55-5.69; P = 0.001] and worse OS (HR 3.28, 95% CI 1.58-6.81; P = 0.001) than low-BRAF AF patients (<2%, n = 24). In the multivariable analysis, BRAF AF levels maintained independent significance. In the validation cohort, high BRAF AF was associated with worse PFS (HR 3.83, 95% CI 1.60-9.17; P = 0.002) and a trend toward worse OS was observed (HR 1.86, 95% CI 0.80-4.34; P = 0.15). An exploratory analysis of predictive value showed that high-BRAF AF patients (n = 35) benefited more from triplet therapy than low-BRAF AF patients (n = 41; PFS and OS interaction tests, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Plasmatic BRAF AF determined by ddPCR is a reliable surrogate of tumor burden and aggressiveness in BRAF-V600E-mutant mCRC treated with a BRAFi plus an anti-EGFR with or without a MEKi and identifies patients who may benefit from treatment intensification. Our results warrant further validation of plasmatic BRAF AF to refine clinical stratification and guide treatment strategies.

A signature of circulating microRNAs predicts the response to treatment with FOLFIRI plus aflibercept in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

The benefit of adding the antiangiogenic drug aflibercept to FOLFIRI regime in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients resistant to or progressive on an oxaliplatin-based therapy has been previously demonstrated. However, the absence of validated biomarkers to predict greater outcomes is a major challenge encountered when using antiangiogenic therapies. In this study we investigated profiles of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) to build predictive models of response to treatment and survival. Plasma was obtained from 98 metastatic CRC patients enrolled in a clinical phase II trial before receiving FOLFIRI plus aflibercept treatment, and the circulating levels of 754 individual miRNAs were quantified using real-time PCR. A distinct signature of circulating miRNAs differentiated responder from non-responder patients. Remarkably, most of these miRNAs were found to target genes that are involved in angiogenic processes. Accordingly, some of these miRNAs had predictive value and entered in predictive models of response to therapy, progression of disease, and survival of patients treated with FOLFIRI plus aflibercept. Among these miRNAs, circulating levels of hsa-miR-33b-5p efficiently discriminated between responder and non-responder patients and predicted the risk of disease progression. Moreover, the combination of circulating VEGF-A and miR-33b-5p levels improved clinical stratification of metastatic CRC patients who were to receive FOLFIRI plus aflibercept treatment. In conclusion, our study supports circulating miRNAs as valuable biomarkers for predicting better outcomes in metastatic CRC patients treated with FOLFIRI plus aflibercept.

Pooled safety analysis from phase III studies of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed clinical benefit, including improved survival and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal (mCRC) or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mGC/GEJC) cancer in the phase III RECOURSE and TAGS trials, respectively. A pooled analysis was conducted to further characterize FTD/TPI safety, including management of haematologic toxicities and use in patients with renal or hepatic impairment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with ≥2 prior regimens for advanced mGC/GEJC or mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to FTD/TPI [35 mg/m2 twice daily days 1-5 and 8-12 (28-day cycle); same dosage in both trials] or placebo plus best supportive care. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose) and analysed by renal/hepatic function. RESULTS: TAGS and RECOURSE included 335 and 533 FTD/TPI-treated and 168 and 265 placebo-treated patients, respectively. Overall safety of FTD/TPI was similar in TAGS and RECOURSE. Haematologic (neutropenia, anaemia) and gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhoea) AEs were most commonly observed. Laboratory-assessed grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 37% (TAGS)/38% (RECOURSE) of FTD/TPI-treated patients (median onset: 29 days/55 days), and 96% (TAGS)/97% (RECOURSE) of cases resolved regardless of renal/hepatic function. Supportive medications for neutropenia were received by 17% (TAGS) and 9% (RECOURSE); febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% and 4%, respectively. Overall grade ≥3 AEs were more frequent in patients with moderate renal impairment [81% (TAGS); 85% (RECOURSE)] versus normal renal function (74%; 67%); anaemia and neutropenia were more common in patients with renal impairment. FTD/TPI safety (including haematologic AEs) was consistent across patients with normal and mildly impaired hepatic function. CONCLUSIONS: These results support FTD/TPI as a well-tolerated treatment in patients with mGC/GEJC or mCRC, with a consistent safety profile. Safety was largely similar in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal/hepatic function; however, patients with renal impairment should be monitored for haematologic toxicities.

Antitumor activity of lurbinectedin in combination with oral capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies showed a synergistic effect for 5-fluorouracil and lurbinectedin against solid tumors. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of capecitabine plus lurbinectedin in patients with selected advanced solid tumors. Results in patients with relapsed metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received capecitabine daily on day (D)1-D14 combined with lurbinectedin on D1, D8 or D1 every 3 weeks (q3w) intravenously, following a standard 3 + 3 escalation design and expansion at the recommended dose (RD). RESULTS: Of the 81 enrolled patients, 28 had relapsed MBC: 20 with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors and 8 with triple-negative tumors; 3 treated in the D1,D8 schedule and 25 in the D1 schedule. The RD was capecitabine 1650 mg/m2 daily on D1-D14 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m2 on D1 q3w. Sixteen confirmed responses and two prolonged disease stabilizations (≥6 months) were observed [overall response rate (ORR)/clinical benefit rate (CBR) = 57%/64% at all dose levels; 47%/60% at the RD]. Twelve responses and both prolonged stabilizations occurred in HR-positive tumors (ORR/CBR = 60%/70% at all dose levels, 56%/78% at the RD). Four responses were found in triple-negative tumors (ORR and CBR = 50% at all dose levels; 33% at the RD). Myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable at the RD; most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. No episodes of febrile neutropenia or severe palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome occurred. No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was found between lurbinectedin, capecitabine or capecitabine metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: The capecitabine/lurbinectedin combination showed encouraging clinical activity in relapsed MBC, especially in HR-positive tumors. Toxicity was manageable at the RD. Further development is warranted in relapsed MBC.

Two phase I studies of BI 836880, a vascular endothelial growth factor/angiopoietin-2 inhibitor, administered once every 3 weeks or once weekly in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: BI 836880 is a humanized bispecific nanobody® that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin-2. Here, we report results from two phase I, nonrandomized, dose-escalation studies (NCT02674152 and NCT02689505; funded by Boehringer Ingelheim) evaluating BI 836880 in patients with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors, refractory to standard therapy, or for which standard therapy was ineffective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function received escalating intravenous doses of BI 836880 once every 3 weeks (Q3W; Study 1336.1) or once weekly (QW; Study 1336.6). Primary objectives were maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose of BI 836880, based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first cycle. RESULTS: Patients received one of five dosages of 40-1000 mg Q3W (29 patients) or 40-240 mg QW (24 patients). One DLT occurred with Q3W treatment [Grade (G) 3 pulmonary embolism (1000 mg)]. Five DLTs occurred in four patients treated QW [G2 proteinuria (120 mg); G3 hypertension (180 mg); G3 proteinuria and G3 hypertension (240 mg); and G4 respiratory distress (240 mg)]. All patients experienced adverse events, most commonly hypertension with Q3W treatment (89.7%; G3 41.4%), and asthenia with QW treatment (62.5%). Two patients treated Q3W (both 1000 mg) and three patients treated QW (120 mg, 2 patients; 180 mg, 1 patient) experienced partial response. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of BI 836880 was 720 mg Q3W and 180 mg QW. BI 836880 was generally manageable and demonstrated preliminary efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02674152; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02674152 and NCT02689505; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02689505.

Phase I, first-in-human study of MSC-1 (AZD0171), a humanized anti-leukemia inhibitory factor monoclonal antibody, for advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Activation of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is linked to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), with a strong association between LIF expression and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). MSC-1 (AZD0171) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to LIF, promoting antitumor inflammation through TAM modulation and cancer stem cell inhibition, slowing tumor growth. In this phase I, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study, MSC-1 monotherapy was assessed in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using accelerated-titration dose escalation followed by a 3 + 3 design, MSC-1 doses of 75-1500 mg were administered intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) until progression or unmanageable toxicity. Additional patients were enrolled in selected cohorts to further evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics after escalation to the next dose had been approved. The primary objective was characterizing safety and determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Evaluating antitumor activity and progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1, PK and immunogenicity were secondary objectives. Exploratory objectives included pharmacodynamic effects on circulating LIF and TME immune markers. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received treatment. MSC-1 monotherapy was safe and well tolerated at all doses, with no dose-limiting toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the RP2D was determined to be 1500 mg Q3W. Almost half of the patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with no apparent trends across doses; no patients withdrew due to TRAEs. There were no objective responses; 23.7% had stable disease for ≥2 consecutive tumor assessments. Median PFS was 5.9 weeks; 23.7% had PFS >16 weeks. On-treatment changes in circulating LIF and TME signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 signaling, M1:M2 macrophage populations, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration were consistent with the hypothesized mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: MSC-1 was very well tolerated across doses, with prolonged PFS in some patients. Biomarker and preclinical data suggest potential synergy with checkpoint inhibitors.

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related). CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

Advances in the systemic treatment of therapeutic approaches in biliary tract cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a rare and heterogenous group with an increasing incidence and high mortality rate. The estimated new cases and deaths of BTC worldwide are increasing, but the incidence and mortality rates in South East Asia are the highest worldwide, representing a real public health problem in these regions. BTC has a poor prognosis with a median overall survival <12 months. Thus, an urgent unmet clinical need for BTC patients exists and must be addressed. RESULTS: The backbone treatment of these malignancies is chemotherapy in first- and second-line setting, but in the last decade a rich molecular landscape has been discovered, expanding conceivable treatment options. Some druggable molecular aberrations can be treated with new targeted therapies and have already demonstrated efficacy in patients with BTC, improving clinical outcomes, such as the FGFR2 or IDH1 inhibitors. Many other molecular alterations are being discovered and the treatment of BTC will change in the near future from our current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In this review we discuss the epidemiology, molecular characteristics, present treatment approaches, review the recent therapeutic advances, and explore future directions for patients with BTC. Due to the rich molecular landscape of BTC, molecular profiling should be carried out early. Ongoing research will bring new targeted treatments and immunotherapy in the near future.

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC.

BACKGROUND: In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator's choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. RESULTS: Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Phase II multicohort study of atezolizumab monotherapy in multiple advanced solid cancers.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor atezolizumab had shown clinical activity against several advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase II, open-label basket study (NCT02458638) was conducted in 16 main cohorts of patients aged ≥18 years with stage III or IV solid tumors. In stage I, 12 patients were enrolled into each cohort. Treatment was atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-progression rate (NPR) at 18 weeks in treated, assessable patients. NPR ≤20% was not of interest for development as monotherapy, and NPR ≥40% was defined as the threshold of benefit/success. If ≥3 patients had non-progressive disease in stage I (interim analysis), 13 additional patients could be enrolled into stage II (final analysis). Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 474 patients were enrolled and treated; 433 were included in the efficacy set. Due partly to slow recruitment because of competing trials and limited efficacy at interim analyses, enrollment was stopped early, including in cohorts that passed stage I boundaries of success. NPR was >20% in five cohorts: cervical cancer {n = 27; NPR 44.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.5% to 64.7%]}; follicular/papillary thyroid cancer [n = 11; 54.5% (95% CI 23.4% to 83.3%)]; thymoma [n = 13; 76.9% (95% CI: 46.2% to 95.0%)]; gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) and lung neuroendocrine tumors [NETs; n = 24; 41.7% (95% CI 22.1% to 63.4%)], and low/intermediate grade carcinoid GEP and lung NETs [n = 12; 58.3% (95% CI 27.7% to 84.8%)]. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 55.3% of patients overall, and at grade 3, 4, and 5 in 10.3%, 1.7%, and 0.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab monotherapy was effective in the cervical cancer cohort. The interim benefit threshold was crossed in patients with follicular/papillary thyroid cancer, thymoma, and GEP and lung NETs, but recruitment was stopped before these signals could be confirmed in stage II. Safety was consistent with previous findings.

Future care for long-term cancer survivors: towards a new model

PurposeThe increase in the prevalence "long-term cancer survivor” (LCS) patients is expected to increase the cost of LCS care. The aim of this study was to obtain information that would allow to optimise the current model of health management in Spain to adapt it to one of efficient LCS patient care.MethodsThis qualitative study was carried out using Delphi methodology. An advisory committee defined the criteria for participation, select the panel of experts, prepare the questionnaire, interpret the results and draft the final report.Results232 people took part in the study (48 oncologists). Absolute consensus was reached in three of the proposed sections: oncological epidemiology, training of health professionals and ICT functions.ConclusionThe role of primary care in the clinical management of LCS patients needs to be upgraded, coordination with the oncologist and hospital care is essential. The funding model needs to be adapted to determine the funding conditions for new drugs and technologies.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the anti-CEACAM5-DM4 antibody-drug conjugate tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) in patients with advanced solid tumors: first-in-human dose-escalation study.

BACKGROUND: Tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule-5 (CEACAM5) and a cytotoxic maytansinoid that selectively targets CEACAM5-expressing tumor cells. In this phase I dose-escalation study, we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of tusamitamab ravtansine in patients with solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, had locally advanced/metastatic solid tumors that expressed or were likely to express CEACAM5, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1. Patients were treated with ascending doses of tusamitamab ravtansine intravenously every 2 weeks (Q2W). The first three dose levels (5, 10, and 20 mg/m2) were evaluated using an accelerated escalation protocol, after which an adaptive Bayesian procedure was used. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first two cycles, graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) v4.03 criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received tusamitamab ravtansine (range 5-150 mg/m2). The DLT population comprised 28 patients; DLTs (reversible grade 3 microcystic keratopathy) occurred in three of eight patients treated with tusamitamab ravtansine 120 mg/m2 and in two of three patients treated with 150 mg/m2. The maximum tolerated dose was identified as 100 mg/m2. Twenty-two patients (71%) experienced ≥1 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), seven patients (22.6%) experienced ≥1 treatment-related grade ≥3 TEAE, and three patients (9.7%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. The most common TEAEs were asthenia, decreased appetite, keratopathy, and nausea. Three patients had confirmed partial responses. The mean plasma exposure of tusamitamab ravtansine increased in a dose-proportional manner from 10 to 150 mg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: Tusamitamab ravtansine had a favorable safety profile with reversible, dose-related keratopathy as the DLT. Based on the overall safety profile, pharmacokinetic data, and Bayesian model recommendations, the maximum tolerated dose of tusamitamab ravtansine was defined as 100 mg/m2 Q2W.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective.

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care.

Future care for long-term cancer survivors: towards a new model.

PURPOSE: The increase in the prevalence "long-term cancer survivor" (LCS) patients is expected to increase the cost of LCS care. The aim of this study was to obtain information that would allow to optimise the current model of health management in Spain to adapt it to one of efficient LCS patient care. METHODS: This qualitative study was carried out using Delphi methodology. An advisory committee defined the criteria for participation, select the panel of experts, prepare the questionnaire, interpret the results and draft the final report. RESULTS: 232 people took part in the study (48 oncologists). Absolute consensus was reached in three of the proposed sections: oncological epidemiology, training of health professionals and ICT functions. CONCLUSION: The role of primary care in the clinical management of LCS patients needs to be upgraded, coordination with the oncologist and hospital care is essential. The funding model needs to be adapted to determine the funding conditions for new drugs and technologies.

Management of adverse events from the treatment of encorafenib plus cetuximab for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: insights from the BEACON CRC study.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.