Futibatinib for FGFR2-Rearranged Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) have emerged as promising drug targets for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Futibatinib, a next-generation, covalently binding FGFR1-4 inhibitor, has been shown to have both antitumor activity in patients with FGFR-altered tumors and strong preclinical activity against acquired resistance mutations associated with ATP-competitive FGFR inhibitors. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, single-group, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic FGFR2 fusion-positive or FGFR2 rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and disease progression after one or more previous lines of systemic therapy (excluding FGFR inhibitors). The patients received oral futibatinib at a dose of 20 mg once daily in a continuous regimen. The primary end point was objective response (partial or complete response), as assessed by independent central review. Secondary end points included the response duration, progression-free and overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Between April 16, 2018, and November 29, 2019, a total of 103 patients were enrolled and received futibatinib. A total of 43 of 103 patients (42%; 95% confidence interval, 32 to 52) had a response, and the median duration of response was 9.7 months. Responses were consistent across patient subgroups, including patients with heavily pretreated disease, older adults, and patients who had co-occurring TP53 mutations. At a median follow-up of 17.1 months, the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months and overall survival was 21.7 months. Common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were hyperphosphatemia (in 30% of the patients), an increased aspartate aminotransferase level (in 7%), stomatitis (in 6%), and fatigue (in 6%). Treatment-related adverse events led to permanent discontinuation of futibatinib in 2% of the patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Quality of life was maintained throughout treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusion or rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the use of futibatinib, a covalent FGFR inhibitor, led to measurable clinical benefit. (Funded by Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical; FOENIX-CCA2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02052778.).

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.

Plain language summary of the FOENIX-CCA2 study: futibatinib for people with advanced bile duct cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from a phase 2 study called FOENIXCCA2. The study evaluated treatment with futibatinib in people with a rare form of advanced bile duct cancer called intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (or iCCA), where the tumors have changes in the structure of a gene called FGFR2. These changes include FGFR2 gene fusions. Bile duct cancer often returns after surgery or cannot be treated by surgery because the tumor has spread, so it requires treatment with chemotherapy. People live for a median of 1 year after their first chemotherapy treatment and 6 months after their second treatment. This study included people whose cancer had grown/spread after one or more chemotherapy treatments. The aims of the study were to see if futibatinib could shrink the size of tumors and stop the cancer from growing/spreading and to see how long people lived when treated with futibatinib. Clinicians also looked at side effects from taking futibatinib and at how it affected people's quality of life. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Futibatinib treatment shrank tumors in over 80% of people who received treatment. Tumors shrank by at least 30% in 42% of people. Futibatinib stopped tumors from growing/spreading for a median of 9.7 months. People who took the medicine lived for a median of 21.7 months, and 72% of people were still alive after 1 year. Side effects from taking futibatinib were like those reported for similar medicines, and clinicians considered the side effects to be manageable by adjusting the dose of futibatinib or treating the side effects. Most people reported that their quality of life stayed the same or improved during the first 9 months of taking futibatinib. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: The results support the use of futibatinib for treating people with advanced bile duct cancer. Based on the results of this study, futibatinib is now approved in the US, Europe, and Japan. Futibatinib is approved for treating adults with advanced bile duct cancer who have received previous treatment for their cancer, and whose tumors have a gene fusion or other change in the FGFR2 gene.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02052778 (FOENIX-CCA2).

Cost effectiveness of commercial portable ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume US lung transplant center.

BACKGROUND: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion during lung transplantation is a resource-intensive technology. In light of its increasing use, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ex vivo lung perfusion at a low-volume lung transplant center in the USA. METHODS: Patients listed for lung transplantation (2015-2021) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. Quality-of-life was approximated by Karnofsky Performance Status scores 1-year post-transplant. Total transplantation encounter and 1-year follow-up costs accrued by our academic center for patients listed from 2018 to 2021 were obtained. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by evaluating the number of patients attaining various Karnofsky scores relative to cost. RESULTS: Of the 13 930 adult patients who underwent lung transplant in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 13 477 (96.7%) used static cold storage and 453 (3.3%) used ex vivo lung perfusion, compared to 30/58 (51.7%) and 28/58 (48.3%), respectively, at our center. Compared to static cold storage, median total costs at 1 year were higher for ex vivo lung perfusion ($918 000 vs. $516 000; p = 0.007) along with the cost of living 1 year with a Karnofsky functional status of 100 after transplant ($1 290 000 vs. $841 000). In simulated scenarios, each Karnofsky-adjusted life year gained by ex vivo lung perfusion was 1.00-1.72 times more expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Portable ex vivo lung perfusion is not currently cost-effective at a low-volume transplant centers in the USA, being 1.53 times more expensive per Karnofsky-adjusted life year. Improving donor lung and/or recipient biology during ex vivo lung perfusion may improve its utility for routine transplantation.

Synergistic combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are uncommon, but highly lethal, gastrointestinal malignancies. Gemcitabine/cisplatin is a standard-of-care systemic therapy, but has a modest impact on survival and harbors toxicities, including myelosuppression, nephropathy, neuropathy, and ototoxicity. Whereas BTCs are characterized by aberrations activating the cyclinD1/cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6/CDK inhibitor 2a/retinoblastoma pathway, clinical use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as monotherapy is limited by lack of validated biomarkers, diffident preclinical efficacy, and development of acquired drug resistance. Emerging studies have explored therapeutic strategies to enhance the antitumor efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibitors by the combination with chemotherapy regimens, but their mechanism of action remains elusive. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Here, we report in vitro and in vivo synergy in BTC models, showing enhanced efficacy, reduced toxicity, and better survival with a combination comprising gemcitabine/cisplatin and CDK4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, we demonstrated that abemaciclib monotherapy had only modest efficacy attributable to autophagy-induced resistance. Notably, triplet therapy was able to potentiate efficacy through elimination of the autophagic flux. Correspondingly, abemaciclib potentiated ribonucleotide reductase catalytic subunit M1 reduction, resulting in sensitization to gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: As such, these data provide robust preclinical mechanistic evidence of synergy between gemcitabine/cisplatin and CDK4/6 inhibitors and delineate a path forward for translation of these findings to preliminary clinical studies in advanced BTC patients.

Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected stage III colon cancer, 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care. The IDEA collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was noninferior to 6 months. Despite failing to meet its primary endpoint, the subgroup analyses demonstrated noninferiority based on regimen and treatment duration when a risk-stratified approach was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of the results of the IDEA collaboration, we evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy prescribing practice patterns, including planned adjuvant treatment regimen and duration from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2021. The time period was selected to evaluate chemotherapy prescribing patterns prior to the abstract presentation of the IDEA collaboration in June 2017 and after full manuscript publication in March 2018. RESULTS: A total of 399 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the analysis. A significant increasing trend for use of 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed after presentation of the IDEA abstract (P<.001). A significant change in CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) prescribing was also observed, increasing from 14% of patients prior to presentation of the IDEA abstract to 48% after presentation (P<.001). Comparing 3 months of CAPOX with 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin), 3 months of CAPOX use also steadily increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20-1.37; P<.001). Among subgroups of interest, no differences in adoption of CAPOX were observed. The adoption of 3 months of CAPOX was similar in patients with low-risk cancer (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37) and those with high-risk cancer (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the IDEA collaboration failing to demonstrate noninferiority of 3 months' duration of adjuvant therapy compared with 6 months, the findings have influenced practice prescribing patterns, favoring CAPOX and a shorter duration of planned adjuvant treatment.

The Role of Systemic Therapy in Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM. METHODS: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits.

Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients With Colorectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hereditary factors play a role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Identification of germline predisposition can have implications on treatment and cancer prevention. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in CRC patients using a universal testing approach, association with clinical outcomes, and the uptake of family variant testing. METHODS: We performed a prospective multisite study of germline sequencing using a more than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among CRC patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. RESULTS: Of 361 patients, the median age was 57 years (SD, 12.4 y), 43.5% were female, 82% were white, and 38.2% had stage IV disease. PGVs were found in 15.5% (n = 56) of patients, including 44 in moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Thirty-four (9.4%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by practice guideline criteria or a CRC-specific gene panel. Only younger age at diagnosis was associated with the presence of PGVs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.56). After a median follow-up period of 20.7 months, no differences in overall survival were seen between those with or without a PGV (P = .2). Eleven percent of patients had modifications in their treatment based on genetic findings. Family cascade testing was low (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Universal multigene panel testing in CRC was associated with a modest, but significant, detection of heritable mutations over guideline-based testing. One in 10 patients had changes in their management based on test results. Uptake of cascade family testing was low, which is a concerning observation that warrants further study.

A pilot study of Pan-FGFR inhibitor ponatinib in patients with FGFR-altered advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Background Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are rare, chemo resistant and are associated with a poor prognosis. Preclinical and early clinical work had demonstrated interesting anti-tumor activity from targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway. We hypothesized that ponatinib, a multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against FGFR, would be active in BTC patients with FGFR alterations. Methods This was a multi-center, single institution pilot study of ponatinib in patients with advanced, refractory BTC with FGFR alterations. The primary end point was overall response rate, with secondary points of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) assessment. Results Twelve patients were enrolled prior to early termination of the trial. Partial responses were observed in 1 from 12 patients. Median PFS was 2.4 months and median OS was 15.7 months. All observed toxicities were manageable and reversible. Toxicities were mild, with lymphopenia (75%), rash (63%) and fatigue (50%) being the most frequent. No significant detriment in global QoL was observed. Conclusions Ponatinib as a single agent in FGFR altered BTC is tolerable with limited clinical activity. This is the first report of prospective assessment of FGFR inhibition in BTC using ponatinib, and the first study to report its effect on HRQoL. Further development of ponatinib will involve correlative studies to better refine patient selection, focus on combinations with other molecular targeted agents, conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, and studies to better understand mechanisms of treatment resistance.

Utility of geriatric assessments in evaluation of older adults for kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: While kidney transplantation has favorable outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older, many are not referred for evaluation despite having no contraindications. We wanted to determine whether incorporating geriatrics and geriatric assessments (GA), as part of kidney transplant evaluation at the University of Chicago Medicine, would help identify suitable candidates and improve transplantation outcomes among older adults. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, as part of their multi-disciplinary transplant evaluation, 171 patients underwent an initial GA with the study geriatrician, who rated them on a five-point scale from "poor" to "excellent," and presented their cases to multidisciplinary transplant review meetings. Patients were followed until June 1st, 2021. Predictor variables included geriatric recommendation, clinical characteristics, and demographics. Outcomes of interest were mortality, receipt of transplant, and waitlist placement. RESULTS: Compared to patients rated "poor," "marginal," or "fair," we found that patients that the geriatrician recommended as "good" or "excellent" were more likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant. Favorably rated patients were also less likely to be removed from the waitlist due to becoming medically unfit, meaning worsening medical morbidity, frailty, and cognitive status. CONCLUSION: Including geriatricians to perform GAs as part of the transplant evaluation process can help identify suitable elderly candidates.

Real-world outcomes in patients with first-line and second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Little is known about real-world outcomes for first-line and anti-PD-1 second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Patients & methods: Retrospective data of advanced/metastatic ESCC patients treated between 2011 and 2021 were collected from Flatiron Health. Median duration of therapy (mDoT) and median overall survival (mOS) were evaluated for patients initiating first-line and anti-PD-1 second-line therapy. Results: Among patients receiving first-line therapy (n = 948), mDoT was 1.4 months and mOS was 16.0 months, with mOS of 16.0 and 18.0 months for the non-immunotherapy and immunotherapy cohorts, respectively. Among patients receiving anti-PD-1 second-line therapy (n = 60), mDoT was 5.7 months and mOS was 10.1 months. Conclusion: Patients with advanced/metastatic ESCC have short duration of therapy, and overall survival remains limited. This real-world study underscores the need for efficacious treatments for advanced/metastatic ESCC in the first- and second-line setting. Direct comparisons of emerging therapies in the real world are urgently needed.

FGFR2-IIIb Expression by Immunohistochemistry Has High Specificity in Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Genomic Alterations.

BACKGROUND: FGFR2 genomic alterations are observed in 10-20% of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Although FGFR2 fusions are an important actionable target, FGFR2 protein expression has not been thoroughly characterized. AIMS: To evaluate FGFR2 protein expression in cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 genomic alterations. METHODS: FGFR2 protein expression was evaluated in 99 CCA cases with two different antibodies. FGFR2 genomic alterations were confirmed via next-generating sequencing (NGS) or FISH. Primary objective was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of FGFR2 immunohistochemistry staining for detecting FGFR2 genomic alterations. Secondary objectives included overall FGFR2 immunohistochemistry staining in CCA patients, and evaluation of whether FGFR2 expression correlates with clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-tumor recurrence (TTR). RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry staining with two antibodies against FGFR2, FPR2-D, and clone 98706 showed high accuracy (78.7% and 91.9%) and specificity (82.9% and 97.7%), and moderate sensitivity (53.9% and 57.1%), respectively, when compared with the standard methods for detecting FGFR2 genomic alterations. In a median follow-up of 72 months, there were no statistically significant differences in OS, PFS, and TTR, for patients with positive or negative FGFR2 staining. CONCLUSION: FGFR2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry has high specificity and therefore could be used to imply the presence of FGFR2 genomic alterations in the context of a positive test. In the case of a negative test, NGS or FISH would be necessary to ascertain cases with FGFR2 genomic alterations.

Combination Immunotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Where Are We Currently?

The past decade has seen a rise in the availability of breakthrough therapeutic strategies for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A tumor microenvironment in HCC is regulated by various immunotolerance mechanisms; therefore, therapeutic strategies aiming at disrupting tumor immune tolerance are becoming attractive curative options in HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated impressive effectiveness in HCC, including in sorafenib-unresponsive patients. Synergistic approaches with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4) and antiangiogenic drugs are burgeoning as first-line treatment therapeutic modalities in HCC.

Mismatch Repair (MMR) Gene Alteration and BRAF V600E Mutation Are Potential Predictive Biomarkers of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in MMR-Deficient Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is highly effective in metastatic mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-D) colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, we evaluated molecular and clinical predictors of ICI response in MMR-D CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient databases at four cancer institutions were queried. The Fisher exact test was performed to test the association of clinical and molecular markers. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and compared by the log-rank test. Twelve- and 24-month PFS rates were compared by the Z test. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients with CRC with MMR-D/microsatellite instability-high who previously received ICIs were identified. Patients with liver metastasis had a lower overall response rate as compared with other sites of metastasis (36.4% vs. 68.7%; p = .081). Patients with MLH1/PMS2 loss had worse 1-year and 2-year PFS rates compared with patients with MSH2/MSH6 loss (84.2% vs. 57.8% and 78.2% vs. 54.2%, respectively; p < .001). There were improved 1-year and 2-year PFS rates in patients with wild-type BRAF when compared with patients with BRAF V600E mutation (73.3% vs. 40%, and 73.3% vs. 26.7%; respectively; p < .001). Patients aged >65 had significantly worse PFS rates as compared with patients aged ≤65 (p < .001). CONCLUSION: BRAF V600E mutation, MLH1 and/or PMS2 loss, as well as age >65 years and liver metastasis, may be predictive of duration of ICI response in patients with MMR-D CRC. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm our findings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results of this study reveal clinically important biomarkers that potentially predict immune checkpoint inhibitor response in patients with mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer.

Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Testing and Actionable Findings in Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Recent advances in molecular diagnostic technologies allow for the evaluation of solid tumor malignancies through noninvasive blood sampling, including circulating tumor DNA profiling (ctDNA). Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, often because of late presentation of disease. Diagnosis is often made using endoscopic ultrasound or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which often does not yield enough tissue for next-generation sequencing. With this study, we sought to characterize the ctDNA genomic alteration landscape in patients with advanced PDAC with a focus on actionable findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 2014 through October 2019, 357 samples collected from 282 patients with PDAC at Mayo Clinic underwent ctDNA testing using a clinically available assay. The majority of samples were tested using the 73-gene panel which includes somatic genomic targets, including complete or critical exon coverage in 30 and 40 genes, respectively, and in some, amplifications, fusions, and indels. Clinical data and outcome variables were available for 165 patients; with 104 patients at initial presentation. RESULTS: All patients included in this study had locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Samples having at least one alteration, when variants of unknown significance (VUS) were excluded, numbered 266 (75%). After excluding VUS, therapeutically relevant alterations were observed in 170 (48%) of the total 357 cohort, including KRAS (G12C), EGFR, ATM, MYC, BRCA, PIK3CA, and BRAF mutations. KRAS, SMAD, CCND2, or TP53 alterations were seen in higher frequency in patients with advanced disease. CONCLUSION: Our study is the largest cohort to date that demonstrates the feasibility of ctDNA testing in PDAC. We provide a benchmark landscape upon which the field can continue to grow. Future applications may include use of ctDNA to guide treatment and serial monitoring of ctDNA during disease course to identify novel therapeutic targets for improved prognosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis often due to late presentation of disease. Biopsy tissue sampling is invasive and samples are often inadequate, requiring repeated invasive procedures and delays in treatment. Noninvasive methods to identify PDAC early in its course may improve prognosis in PDAC. Using ctDNA, targetable genes can be identified and used for treatment.

Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

ABHD10 is an S-depalmitoylase affecting redox homeostasis through peroxiredoxin-5.

S-Palmitoylation is a reversible lipid post-translational modification that has been observed on mitochondrial proteins, but both the regulation and functional consequences of mitochondrial S-palmitoylation are poorly understood. Here, we show that perturbing the 'erasers' of S-palmitoylation, acyl protein thioesterases (APTs), with either pan-active inhibitors or a mitochondrial-targeted APT inhibitor, diminishes the antioxidant buffering capacity of mitochondria. Surprisingly, this effect was not mediated by the only known mitochondrial APT, but rather by a resident mitochondrial protein with no known endogenous function, ABHD10. We show that ABHD10 is a member of the APT family of regulatory proteins and identify peroxiredoxin-5 (PRDX5), a key antioxidant protein, as a target of ABHD10 S-depalmitoylase activity. We then find that ABHD10 regulates the S-palmitoylation status of the nucleophilic active site residue of PRDX5, providing a direct mechanistic connection between ABHD10-mediated S-depalmitoylation of PRDX5 and its antioxidant capacity.

Homologous Recombination Repair Defect May Predict Treatment Response to Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy for Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Lutetium-177-dotatate (177 Lu-dotatate), a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in 2018 based on the promising results of the NETTER-1 trial for grade 1-2 midgut NETs. Here, we present a patient with a grade 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and BRCA1 germline mutation who had a significant response to 177 Lu-dotatate.

Phase II Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Patients with Advanced, Refractory Biliary Tract Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy. BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC. METHODS: Patients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%-53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2-5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4-11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted. CONCLUSION: FTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.