Search

Purpose: We examined the concordance of genetic mutations between pretreatment tumor tissue and posttreatment circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCA) and assessed the impact of therapy on this concordance., Methods: We analyzed next-generation sequencing reports from pretreatment tumor tissue and posttreatment ctDNA in 11 patients with metastatic SCCA treated at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between 2017 and 2021., Results: Among the mutations identified in posttreatment ctDNA, 34.5% were also found in pretreatment tumor tissue, while 47.6% of pretreatment tumor tissue mutations were found in posttreatment ctDNA. Four patients had preservation of potentially actionable mutations in both pretreatment tissue and posttreatment ctDNA, while 7 patients had newly identified mutations in posttreatment ctDNA that were not present in pretreatment tumor tissue., Conclusion: Patients with SCCA demonstrate a high degree of temporal mutational heterogeneity. This supports the hypothesis that ctDNA can serve as a real-time tracking mechanism for solid tumors' molecular evolution in response to therapy. Our findings highlight the potential of ctDNA in identifying emerging actionable mutations, supplementing information from tissue-based genomic assessments. Further research, ideally with larger and multi-institutional cohorts, is needed to validate our findings in this relatively rare tumor type., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

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., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

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., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Introduction: Immune-related adverse event (IRAE) onset may represent a clinical biomarker for anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody response based on emerging evidence from patients with various advanced malignancies. This phenomenon has not been previously reported in a multidisease cohort of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications to receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy., Materials and Methods: The study was a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of 76 patients with GI cancer who had received anti-PD-1 antibodies for FDA-approved indications. The primary and secondary outcomes of the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients based upon IRAE presence, respectively. PFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method; a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for IRAE onset, patient age, and enrolling institution was used to analyze outcomes., Results: Median PFS and OS were prolonged in patients who experienced IRAEs compared with those who did not experience them (PFS: not reached [NR] vs. 3.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.3, p < .001]; OS: NR vs. 7.4 months [HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, p < .001]). Among patients who experienced IRAEs, there were no significant differences in PFS and OS by either initial IRAE severity, management, or time to onset., Conclusion: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who experienced IRAEs while on anti-PD-1 antibodies demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and OS compared with their counterparts who did not develop IRAEs. Although these findings add to results from studies in other tumor types, larger prospective studies are needed prior to clinical adoption of IRAE onset as a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response., Implications for Practice: Predictive clinical biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor response have been understudied in the field of immuno-oncology. Immune-related adverse event onset appears to be one such biomarker. Across tumor types, immune-related adverse event onset has been associated with response to anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies. The results of this study demonstrate this for the first time in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving anti-PD-1 antibodies. Before immune-related adverse event onset can be adopted clinically as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitor response, however, larger prospective studies are needed to better understand the nuances between immune-related adverse event characteristics (severity, site, management, timing of onset) and immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

The emergence of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has considerably improved survival, but has also resulted in a dilemma of identifying the optimal sequence and combination of various agents in the mCRC treatment landscape. A number of cytotoxic agents, including irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, and TAS-102, are available for treatment of mCRC. Additionally, whereas patients harboring rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog ( RAS )-wild type mCRC can be treated with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab or antiangiogenic agents (bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, and ramucirumab), patients with RAS -mutant mCRC are limited to antiangiogenic agents as biologic options. Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, can be used in both RAS subgroups. As such, the recommended sequence of therapies that should be received by each subgroup must also be considered separately. This review provides an overview of recent clinical data for approved and investigational targeted therapies that have been studied across different mCRC treatment lines and patient subgroups. It also examines emerging trends in the treatment landscape for mCRC, including treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the utilization of genomic profiling., Implications for Practice: Currently, there are no established guidelines for optimal sequencing of cytotoxic or targeted agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This review provides a snapshot of the current mCRC treatment paradigm and examines the latest clinical data that support the utilization of several targeted agents alone or in combination with backbone chemotherapy across different lines of treatment and patient populations, highlighting recommendations for their usage. Recent advances in the treatment landscape are also summarized, including genomic profiling and preliminary results with immune checkpoint inhibitors., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)