Chemo-immunotherapy with dinutuximab beta in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma: does chemotherapy backbone matter?

BACKGROUND: Addition of anti-GD2 antibodies to temozolomide-based chemotherapy has demonstrated increased antitumor activity and progression-free survival in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma. However, chemo-immunotherapy is not yet approved for this indication. This study presents the chemo-immunotherapy experience in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma treated within the off-label use program of the Neuroblastoma Committee of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology (SFCE). METHODS: Dinutuximab beta (dB) was administered alongside temozolomide-topotecan (TOTEM) or temozolomide-irinotecan (TEMIRI) at first disease relapse/progression or topotecan-cyclophosphamide (TopoCyclo) at further relapse/progression. Real-world data on demographics, treatment, antitumor activity and safety was collected from all patients after inclusion in SACHA-France (NCT04477681), a prospective national registry, which documents safety and efficacy data on innovative anticancer therapies prescribed to patients ≤ 25 years old as compassionate or off-label use. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and July 2023, 39 patients with confirmed relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma (median age 6 years, range 1-24) were treated with dB+TopoCyclo (n = 24) or dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI (n = 15) across 17 centers. In total, 163 chemo-immunotherapy cycles were administered, main toxicities were mild or moderate, with higher incidence of hematological adverse drug reactions with dB+TopoCyclo than dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI. Objective response rate was 42% for dB+TopoCyclo (CI95% 22-63%) and 40% for dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI (CI95% 16-68%). CONCLUSION: Similar objective response rates for dB+TopoCyclo and dB+TOTEM/TEMIRI in patients with relapsed/progressive high-risk neuroblastoma emphasize the importance of chemo-immunotherapy, irrespective of the chemotherapy backbone.

A Phase II Study of FOLFIRI Plus Ziv-Aflibercept After Trifluridine/Tipiracil Plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: WJOG 11018G.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab (BEV) to irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine plus BEV in metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in the phase III TRUSTY study, and we conducted a phase II study of FOLFIRI (5-FU+leucovorin+irinotecan) plus zib-aflibercept (AFL) after FTD/TPI plus BEV. However, the TRUSTY study failed during the recruitment of our patients. OBJECTIVE: We present the findings of a phase II study on the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus zib-aflibercept (AFL) after FTD/TPI plus BEV, including clinical results with plasma biomarker analyses. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase II study in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory or intolerant to oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine, BEV, and FTD/TPI. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Fifteen plasma angiogenesis-associated biomarkers were analyzed using a Luminex® multiplex assay U-kit. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and May 2022, 26 patients (median age, 68 years) from 15 sites were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (85% confidence interval, 3.4 month-not estimated). The overall response and disease control rates were 8% and 62%, respectively. The median levels of vascular endothelial growth factor-A and placental growth factor, both targets of AFL, were below the measurable limit of 30 pg/mL and 16 pg/mL, respectively. Patients were divided into two groups at the median levels of baseline biomarkers. The progression-free survival did not differ between high and low expressers of placental growth factor (p = 0.7), while it tended to be shorter in those with high levels of osteopontin (p = 0.05), angiopoietin-2 (p = 0.07), and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 (p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet the primary endpoint. Hence, FOLFIRI plus AFL should not be used after FTD/TPI plus BEV for metastatic colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to determine factors not targeted by AFL that may affect the efficacy of the treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCTs041190100.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with and without nivolumab for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: phase 2 results from the CheckMate 9X8 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). METHODS: CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. RESULTS: From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03414983.

Outcomes of Metastatic and Unresectable Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma in Japan According to the Treatment Strategy: A Nationwide Observational Study.

PURPOSE: Limited information is available regarding the characteristics and outcomes of stage IV small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) in Japan. This study examined the clinical and pathological characteristics and outcomes according to the treatment strategies in patients with stage IV SBA. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used the data of patients with jejunal or ileal adenocarcinoma collected by the Small Bowel Malignant Tumor Project of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Descriptive statistics were expressed as the mean (standard deviation) or median (range). Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and pairwise log-rank tests. RESULTS: Data from 128 patients were analyzed. The treatment strategies were chemotherapy alone (26 of 128, 20.3%), surgery alone (including palliative surgery; 21 of 128, 16.4%), surgery + chemotherapy (74 of 128, 57.8%), and best supportive care (7 of 128, 5.5%). The median (range) overall survival was 16 (0-125) months overall, and 11 (1-38) months, 8 (0-80) months, 18 (0-125) months, and 0 (0-1) months for the chemotherapy, surgery, surgery + chemotherapy, and best supportive care groups, respectively. Three main categories of chemotherapeutic regimen were used: a combination of fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin (F + Ox), fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan (F + Iri), and single-agent fluoropyrimidine. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, the median (range) OS was 16 (1-106) months overall, and 17 (1-87) months, 29 (7-39) months, and 16 (1-106) months in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine, F + Iri, and F + Ox, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with surgery, chemotherapy, or both had a better prognosis than those who received best supportive care. Among patients who received chemotherapy, survival did not differ according to the chemotherapeutic regimen.

The efficacy and safety of vincristine, irinotecan and anlotinib in Epithelioid Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Epithelioid sarcoma is a rare soft tissue sarcoma characterized by SMARCB1/INI1 deficiency. Much attention has been paid to the selective EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat, where other systemic treatments are generally ignored. To explore alternative treatment options, we studied the effects of irinotecan-based chemotherapy in a series of epithelioid sarcoma patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with metastatic or unresectable epithelioid sarcoma at the Peking University People's Hospital treated with irinotecan (50 mg/m2/d d1-5 Q3W) in combination with Anlotinib (12 mg Qd, 2 weeks on and 1 week off) from July 2015 to November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 54 courses were administered. With a median follow up of 21.2 months (95% CI, 12.2, 68.1), the 5-year overall survival rate was 83.3%. Five of eight (62.5%) patients presented with unresectable localized lesions, including local tumor thrombosis and lymphatic metastasis. The other patients had unresectable pulmonary metastases. Six of eight (75%) patients had progressed following two lines of systemic therapy. The objective response rate reached 37.5% (three of eight patients) while stabilized disease was observed in 62.5% (five of eight) of patients. No patient had progressed at initial evaluation. At the last follow up, two patients were still using the combination and three patients had ceased the therapy due to toxicities such as diarrhea, nausea, and emesis. One patient changed to tazemetostat for maintenance and one patient stopped treatment due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Another patient stopped therapy as residual lesions had been radiated. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of irinotecan and Anlotinib as a salvage regimen may be considered another effective treatment option for refractory epithelioid sarcoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved in the Medical Ethics Committee of Peking University People's Hospital on October 28, 2022 (No.: 2022PHD015-002). The study was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov with identifier no. NCT05656222.

Organoids as a biomarker for personalized treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: drug screen optimization and correlation with patient response.

BACKGROUND: The inability to predict treatment response of colorectal cancer patients results in unnecessary toxicity, decreased efficacy and survival. Response testing on patient-derived organoids (PDOs) is a promising biomarker for treatment efficacy. The aim of this study is to optimize PDO drug screening methods for correlation with patient response and explore the potential to predict responses to standard chemotherapies. METHODS: We optimized drug screen methods on 5-11 PDOs per condition of the complete set of 23 PDOs from patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PDOs were exposed to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. We compared medium with and without N-acetylcysteine (NAC), different readouts and different combination treatment set-ups to capture the strongest association with patient response. We expanded the screens using the optimized methods for all PDOs. Organoid sensitivity was correlated to the patient's response, determined by % change in the size of target lesions. We assessed organoid sensitivity in relation to prior exposure to chemotherapy, mutational status and sidedness. RESULTS: Drug screen optimization involved excluding N-acetylcysteine from the medium and biphasic curve fitting for 5-FU & oxaliplatin combination screens. CellTiter-Glo measurements were comparable with CyQUANT and did not affect the correlation with patient response. Furthermore, the correlation improved with application of growth rate metrics, when 5-FU & oxaliplatin was screened in a ratio, and 5-FU & SN-38 using a fixed dose of SN-38. Area under the curve was the most robust drug response curve metric. After optimization, organoid and patient response showed a correlation coefficient of 0.58 for 5-FU (n = 6, 95% CI -0.44,0.95), 0.61 for irinotecan- (n = 10, 95% CI -0.03,0.90) and 0.60 for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 11, 95% CI -0.01,0.88). Median progression-free survival of patients with resistant PDOs to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly shorter than sensitive PDOs (3.3 vs 10.9 months, p = 0.007). Increased resistance to 5-FU in patients with prior exposure to 5-FU/capecitabine was adequately reflected in PDOs (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasizes the critical impact of the screening methods for determining correlation between PDO drug screens and mCRC patient outcomes. Our 5-step optimization strategy provides a basis for future research on the clinical utility of PDO screens.

Genetic variants in primary cilia-related genes associated with the prognosis of first-line chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Primary cilia are antenna-like organelles that conduct physical and chemical signals, which affect cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation. Some researchers have reported the correlation between primary cilia-related genes and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: The association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of primary cilia-related genes and outcome after the first-line chemotherapy was explored by the Cox regression model. Expression qualitative trait locus (eQTL) analysis was performed to explore the impact of SNPs on gene expression. Tumor Immune Estimation Resource and TISIDB databases were used for investigating the relevance between ODF2L and tumor infiltration immune cells and immunomodulators. RESULTS: We identified that rs4288473 C allele of ODF2L had poor progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of CRC patients in the additive model (adjusted HRPFS = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.14-1.70, p = 1.36 × 10-3 , and adjusted HROS = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.03-1.65, p = 2.62 × 10-2 ). The stratified analysis indicated that rs4288573 CC/CT genotype was involved with poor prognosis in the irinotecan-treated subgroup (PPFS = 1.03 × 10-2 , POS = 3.29 × 10-3 ). Besides, ODF2L mRNA expression level was notably up-regrated in CRC tissues. The C allele of rs4288573 was notably related to higher ODF2L mRNA expression levels based on eQTL analysis. Functionally, knockdown of ODF2L inhibited cell proliferation and decrease the chemoresistance of HCT-116 and DLD-1 cells to irinotecan. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that rs4288573 in ODF2L is a potential predictor of the chemotherapy prognosis of CRC.

A phase II study of guadecitabine combined with irinotecan vs regorafenib or TAS-102 in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) have demonstrated benefit in reversing resistance to systemic therapies for several cancer types. In a phase II trial of guadecitabine and irinotecan compared to regorafenib or TAS-102 in pts with advanced mCRC refractory to irinotecan. Patients with mCRC refractory to irinotecan were randomized 2:1 to guadecitabine and irinotecan (Arm A) vs standard of care regorafenib or TAS-102 (Arm B) on a 28-day cycle. Between January 15, 2016 and October 24, 2018, 104 pts were randomized at four international sites, with 96 pts undergoing treatment, 62 in Arm A and 34 in Arm B. Median overall survival was 7.15 months for Arm A and 7.66 months for Arm B (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.58-1.47, P = .75). The Kaplan-Meier rates of progression free survival at 4 months were 32% in Arm A and 26% in Arm B. Common ≥Grade 3 treatment related adverse events in Arm A were neutropenia (42%), anemia (18%), diarrhea (11%), compared to Arm B pts with neutropenia (12%), anemia (12%). Guadecitabine and irinotecan had similar OS compared to standard of care TAS-102 or regorafenib, with evidence of target modulation. Clinical trial information: NCT01896856.

Bevacizumab, Irinotecan, or Topotecan Added to Temozolomide for Children With Relapsed and Refractory Neuroblastoma: Results of the ITCC-SIOPEN BEACON-Neuroblastoma Trial.

PURPOSE: Outcomes for children with relapsed and refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (RR-HRNB) remain dismal. The BEACON Neuroblastoma trial (EudraCT 2012-000072-42) evaluated three backbone chemotherapy regimens and the addition of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab (B). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients age 1-21 years with RR-HRNB with adequate organ function and performance status were randomly assigned in a 3 × 2 factorial design to temozolomide (T), irinotecan-temozolomide (IT), or topotecan-temozolomide (TTo) with or without B. The primary end point was best overall response (complete or partial) rate (ORR) during the first six courses, by RECIST or International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria for patients with measurable or evaluable disease, respectively. Safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) time were secondary end points. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients with RR-HRNB were included. For B random assignment (n = 160), the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 17 to 37) with B and 18% (95% CI, 10 to 28) without B (risk ratio [RR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.77]; P = .17). Adjusted hazard ratio for PFS and OS were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.27) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.45), respectively. For irinotecan ([I]; n = 121) and topotecan (n = 60) random assignments, RRs for ORR were 0.94 and 1.22, respectively. A potential interaction between I and B was identified. For patients in the bevacizumab-irinotecan-temozolomide (BIT) arm, the ORR was 23% (95% CI, 10 to 42), and the 1-year PFS estimate was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: The addition of B met protocol-defined success criteria for ORR and appeared to improve PFS. Within this phase II trial, BIT showed signals of antitumor activity with acceptable tolerability. Future trials will confirm these results in the chemoimmunotherapy era.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study.

PURPOSE: The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A. RESULTS: Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%). CONCLUSION: The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.

Hindering the unlimited proliferation of tumor cells synergizes with destroying tumor blood vessels for effective cancer treatment.

The rational combination of chemotherapy drugs can improve the curative effect of cancer treatment. As two early recognized tumor hallmarks, the limitless replicative potential of tumor cells is essential for the development of their malignant growth state, and sustained angiogenesis is a prerequisite to the rapid growth of tumors. Based on this, we propose a combination therapy that hinders the unlimited proliferation of tumor cells and destroys tumor blood vessels. Herein, 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN38), a typical topoisomerase I inhibitor, was bonded to poly(L-glutamic acid) (PLG) to prepare the nanodrug SN38-NPs, which hinders the unlimited proliferation of tumor cells. A poly(L-glutamic acid)-combretastatin A4 conjugate (CA4-NPs), a representative vascular disrupting agent (VDA), was used to selectively disrupt the tumor blood vessels, cutting off the necessary nutrients and oxygen for the proliferation of tumor cells. In the 4T1 tumor model with an initial volume of about 400 mm3, the combined treatment of SN38-NPs and CA4-NPs showed an excellent cancer treatment effect with a tumor suppression rate of 94.3% and a synergistic interaction (Q = 1.25). Our study provides a new combination therapy approach for chemotherapy, with the hope of further improving the curative effect of anti-cancer therapy.

A novel treatment strategy utilizing panobinostat for high-risk and treatment-refractory hepatoblastoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with metastatic, treatment-refractory, and relapsed hepatoblastoma (HB) have survival rates of less than 50% due to limited treatment options. To develop new therapeutic strategies for these patients, our laboratory has developed a preclinical testing pipeline. Given that histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibition has been proposed for HB, we hypothesized that we could find an effective combination treatment strategy utilizing HDAC inhibition. METHODS: RNA sequencing, microarray, NanoString, and immunohistochemistry data of patient HB samples were analyzed for HDAC class expression. Patient-derived spheroids (PDSp) were used to screen combination chemotherapy with an HDAC inhibitor, panobinostat. Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) mouse models were developed and treated with the combination therapy that showed the highest efficacy in the PDSp drug screen. RESULTS: HDAC RNA and protein expression were elevated in HB tumors compared to normal livers. Panobinostat (IC50 of 0.013-0.059 µM) showed strong in vitro effects and was associated with lower cell viability than other HDAC inhibitors. PDSp demonstrated the highest level of cell death with combination treatment of vincristine/irinotecan/panobinostat (VIP). All four models responded to VIP therapy with a decrease in tumor size compared to placebo. After 6 weeks of treatment, two models demonstrated necrotic cell death, with lower Ki67 expression, decreased serum alpha fetoprotein and reduced tumor burden compared to paired VI- and placebo-treated groups. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a preclinical HB pipeline, we demonstrate that panobinostat in combination with VI chemotherapy can induce an effective tumor response in models developed from patients with high-risk, relapsed, and treatment-refractory HB. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients with treatment-refractory hepatoblastoma have limited treatment options with survival rates of less than 50%. Our manuscript demonstrates that combination therapy with vincristine, irinotecan, and panobinostat reduces the size of high-risk, relapsed, and treatment-refractory tumors. With this work we provide preclinical evidence to support utilizing this combination therapy as an arm in future clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49-71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62-84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2-34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6-not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00-2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46-67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55-83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2-34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4-not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99-2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven. FUNDING: Norwegian Cancer Society, South Eastern Norwegian Health Authority, The Sjöberg Foundation, and Helsinki University Hospital Research Grants.

NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine With Nab-Paclitaxel as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported. Objective: To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP. Data Sources: After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023. Study Selection: Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines. Data Extraction And Synthesis: Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates. Results: A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.

Intraperitoneal irinotecan with concomitant FOLFOX and bevacizumab for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase II, INTERACT-II trial.

INTRODUCTION: The peritoneum is the second most affected organ for the dissemination of colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) face a poor prognosis, despite the majority of patients being treated with palliative systemic therapy. The efficacy of palliative systemic therapy is limited due to the plasma-peritoneum barrier. The poor prognosis of unresectable CPM patients has resulted in the development of new treatment strategies where systemic therapy is combined with local, intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In the recently published phase I study, the maximum tolerated dose and thus the recommended phase II dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was investigated and determined to be 75 mg. In the present study, the overall survival after treatment with 75 mg irinotecan with concomitant mFOLFOX4 and bevacizumab will be investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-arm phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 85 patients are enrolled. Eligibility criteria are an adequate performance status and organ function, histologically confirmed microsatellite stable and unresectable CPM, no previous palliative therapy for CRC, no systemic therapy<6 months for CRC prior to enrolment and no previous cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC). Patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy as standard work-up for CPM and if the peritoneal disease is considered unresectable (eg, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI)>20, too extensive small bowel involvement), a peritoneal access port and a port-a-cath are placed for administration of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy, respectively. Patients may undergo up to 12 cycles of study treatment. Each cycle consists of intravenous mFOLFOX4 with bevacizumab and concomitant intraperitoneal irinotecan (75 mg), which is repeated every 2 weeks, with a maximum of 12 cycles. Modified FOLFOX-4 regimen consists of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin plus 200 mg/m2 LV and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by 1600 mg/m2 5-FU as a 46 hours infusion. Study treatment ends after the 12th cycle, or earlier in case of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome is overall survival and key secondary outcomes are progression-free survival, safety (measured by the amount of grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0)), patient-reported outcomes and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. It is hypothesised that the trial treatment will lead to a 4 month increase in overall survival; from a median of 12.2 to 16.2 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Dutch Authority (CCMO, the Hague, the Netherlands), by a central medical ethics committee (MEC-U, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) and by the institutional research boards of both research centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06003998.

Could a Long-Acting Prodrug of SN-38 be Efficacious in Sacituzumab Govitecan-Resistant Tumors?

We previously proposed that sacituzumab govitecan (SG, Trodelvy®) likely acts as a simple prodrug of systemic SN-38 as well as an antibody drug conjugate (ADC). In the present commentary, we assess whether a long-acting SN-38 prodrug, such as PLX038, might be efficacious in SG-resistant patients. We first describe possible mechanisms of action of SG, with new insights on pharmacokinetics and TROP2 receptor occupancy. We argue that SG is not an optimal conventional ADC and that the amount of systemic SN-38 spontaneously hydrolyzed from the ADC is so high it must have activity. Then, we describe the concept of time-over-target as related to the pharmacology of SG and PLX038 as SN-38 prodrugs. To be clear, we are not in any way suggesting that PLX038 or any SN-38 prodrug is superior to SG as an anticancer agent. Clearly, SG has the benefit over antigen-independent SN-38 prodrugs in that it targets cells with the TROP2 receptor. However, we surmise that PLX038 should be a more efficacious and less toxic prodrug of systemic SN-38 than SG. Finally, we suggest possible mechanisms of SG resistance and how PLX038 might perform in the context of each. Taken together, we argue that-contrary to many opinions-SG does not exclusively act as a conventional ADC, and propose that PLX038 may be efficacious in some settings of SG-resistance.

Efficacy, safety and genomic analysis of SCT200, an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody, in patients with fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin refractory RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase â ¡ study.

BACKGROUND: Limited therapeutic options are available for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients after failure of first- and second-line therapies, representing an unmet medical need for novel therapies. METHODS: This is an open-label, single arm, multicenter, phase Ⅱ study aiming to perform the efficacy, safety and genomic analysis of SCT200, a noval fully humanized IgG1 anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody, in patients with fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin refractory RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC. SCT200 (6 mg/kg) was given weekly for the first six weeks, followed by a higher dose of 8 mg/kg every two weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included ORR in patients with left-sided tumor, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), time to response (TTR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. FINDINGS: From February 12, 2018 to December 1, 2019, a total of 110 patients aged between 26 and 77 years (median: 55; interquartile range [IQR]: 47-63) with fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan refractory RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC were enrolled from 22 hospitals in China. As the data cut-off date on May 15, 2020, the IRC-assessed ORR and DCR was 31% (34/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22-40%) and 75% (82/110, 95% CI 65-82%), respectively. Thirty one percent (34/110) patients achieved confirmed partial response (PR). The median PFS and median OS were 5.1 months (95% CI 3.4-5.2) and 16.2 months (95% CI 11.1-not available [NA]), respectively. The most common ≥ grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were hypomagnesemia (17%, 19/110) and acneiform dermatitis (11%, 12/110). No deaths occurred. Genomic analysis suggested positive association between MYC amplification and patients' response (P = 0.0058). RAS/RAF mutation and MET amplification were the most frequently detected resistance mechanisms. Patients with high circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at baseline or without ctDNA clearance at the 7th week after the first dose of SCT200 administration before receiving SCT200 had worse PFS and OS. INTERPRETATION: SCT200 exhibited promising clinical efficacy and manageable safety profiles in RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC patients progressed on fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin treatment. The baseline ctDNA and ctDNA clearance status at the 7th week after the first dose of SCT200 administration before receiving SCT200 could be a potential prognostic biomarker for RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC patients with SCT200 therapy. FUNDING: This study was sponsored by Sinocelltech Ltd., Beijing, China and partly supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project for Key New Drug Development (2019ZX09732001-006, 2017ZX09304015).

Research Progress of SN38 Drug Delivery System in Cancer Treatment.

The active metabolite of irinotecan (CPT-11), 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN38), is 100-1000 times more active than CPT-11 and has shown inhibitory effects on a range of cancer cells, including those from the rectal, small cell lung, breast, esophageal, uterine, and ovarian malignancies. Despite SN38's potent anticancer properties, its hydrophobicity and pH instability have caused substantial side effects and anticancer activity loss, which make it difficult to use in clinical settings. To solve the above problems, the construction of SN38-based drug delivery systems is one of the most feasible methods to improve drug solubility, enhance drug stability, increase drug targeting ability, improve drug bioavailability, enhance therapeutic efficacy and reduce adverse drug reactions. Therefore, based on the targeting mechanism of drug delivery systems, this paper reviews SN38 drug delivery systems, including polymeric micelles, liposomal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, protein nanoparticles, conjugated drug delivery systems targeted by aptamers and ligands, antibody-drug couplings, magnetic targeting, photosensitive targeting, redox-sensitive and multi-stimulus-responsive drug delivery systems, and co-loaded drug delivery systems. The focus of this review is on nanocarrier-based SN38 drug delivery systems. We hope to provide a reference for the clinical translation and application of novel SN38 medications.

The Mechanism of 5-Fluorouracil-Induced Hyperpigmentation in HRM-2 Hairless Mice: Focus on the Increase of Blood Vessels.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), an effective chemotherapeutic agent for many solid tumors, has long been reported to cause pigmentation in patients treated intravenously, which occurs with increasing frequency of administration and decreases the QOL of the patients. Although melanin accumulation is thought to be the cause, the mechanism of pigmentation induced by 5-FU administration remains unclear, and there is no effective treatment for this problem. In this study, we investigated the mechanism of pigmentation induced by continuous 5-FU administration in 9-week-old male HRM-2 hairless mice for 8 weeks by focusing on the blood vessels for basic verification. In the auricular skin of 5-FU-administered mice, hyperpigmentation caused by melanin accumulation was observed macroscopically and by Fontana-Masson Staining. In addition, the expression of tyrosinase, melanin synthase, and blood vessel markers in the auricular skin was increased by 5-FU-administration in mice auricular skin. Other anticancer agents, cytarabine (Ara-C) and irinotecan (CPT-11), were also administered, and the differences between them and 5-FU were investigated; these changes were not observed in the auricles of these mice. These results suggest that tyrosinase is associated with 5-FU-induced melanin production and that an increase in blood vessels may be involved. Furthermore, pigmentation with melanin accumulation in the basal epidermal layer is a characteristic finding of 5-FU compared with Ara-C and CPT-11. In conclusion, this study indicates that 5-FU causes hyperpigmentation by melanin accumulation in a characteristic manner, including an increase in blood vessels.

Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: Perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation. METHODS: A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation. CONCLUSION: PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.