Search

Aim: Investigate the relationship between response to pembrolizumab and expression of the 18-gene T cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) or PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) in esophageal cancer. Materials & methods: This analysis included heavily pretreated patients with advanced/metastatic esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma who received pembrolizumab in the single-arm, phase II study KEYNOTE-180. PD-L1 CPS was evaluated with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx. Results: In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, trends toward enrichment for responders were observed for patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a trend was observed for TcellinfGEP but not for PD-L1. Conclusion: TcellinfGEP and PD-L1 CPS may enrich for responders to pembrolizumab in patients with esophageal cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02559687 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

BackgroundIn this nationwide population-based cohort study, we investigated the overall minimum margin width that is independently associated with improved survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and evaluated whether certain margins or surfaces hold independent prognostic significance.MethodsData from 367 patients who underwent PD for PDAC in the period 2015–2019 were retrieved from the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database. Missing data were obtained by review of pathology reports and re-microscopy of resection specimens. Surgical specimens were evaluated using a standardised pathological protocol involving multicolour inking, axial slicing and exact reporting of circumferential margin clearances in 0.5 mm increments.ResultsWhen categorised according to margin widths of ConclusionMargin clearance of at least 1.5 mm was independently associated with improved survival following PD for PDAC. BackgroundIn this nationwide population-based cohort study, we investigated the overall minimum margin width that is independently associated with improved survival following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and evaluated whether certain margins or surfaces hold independent prognostic significance.MethodsData from 367 patients who underwent PD for PDAC in the period 2015–2019 were retrieved from the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database. Missing data were obtained by review of pathology reports and re-microscopy of resection specimens. Surgical specimens were evaluated using a standardised pathological protocol involving multicolour inking, axial slicing and exact reporting of circumferential margin clearances in 0.5 mm increments.ResultsWhen categorised according to margin widths of ConclusionMargin clearance of at least 1.5 mm was independently associated with improved survival following PD for PDAC.

Objectives The four-tiered peritoneal regression grading score (PRGS) is used for histological response evaluation in patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Four quadrant biopsies (QBs) from the parietal peritoneum should be assessed by PRGS, but consensus on biopsy site strategy for follow-up biopsies during repeated PIPACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference between PRGS in QBs from clips marked PM (QB-CM) compared to biopsies from PM with the visually most malignant features (worst biopsy, WB). Methods Prospective, descriptive study. During the first PIPAC, index QBs sites were marked with metal clips. During the second PIPAC, an independent surgical oncologist selected biopsy site for WB and biopsies were taken from QB-CM and WB. One blinded pathologist evaluated all biopsies according to PRGS. From each biopsy, three step sections were stained H&E, followed by an immunostained section, and another three step sections stained H&E. Results Thirty-four patients were included from March 2020 to May 2021. Median age 64 years. Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 1 was 3.3 (SD 1.2). Maximum mean PRGS in QB-CM at PIPAC 2 was 2.6 (SD 1.2), whereas mean PRGS in WB at PIPAC 2 was 2.4 (SD 1.3). At PIPAC 2, there was agreement between maximum PRGS from QB-CM and PRGS from WB in 21 patients. Maximum PRGS from QB-CM was higher in nine and lower in four patients, compared to PRGS from WB. Conclusions Biopsies from QB-CM did not overestimate treatment response compared to biopsies from WB.

Introduction Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been shown to reduce frailty in older patients in general. In older patients with cancer, frailty affects quality of life (QoL), physical function, and survival. However, few studies have examined the effect of CGA as an additional intervention to antineoplastic treatment. This protocol presents a randomized controlled trial, which aims to evaluate the effects of CGA-based interventions in older patients with cancer and Geriatric 8 (G8) identified frailty. Materials and Methods This randomized controlled trial will include patients, age 70+ years, with solid malignancies and G8 frailty (G8 ≤ 14). Patients will be separated into two groups, with different primary endpoints, depending on palliative or curative antineoplastic treatment initiation, and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either CGA with corresponding interventions or standard of care, along with standardized antineoplastic treatment. A geriatrician led CGA with corresponding interventions and clinical follow-up will be conducted within one month of antineoplastic treatment initiation. The interdisciplinary CGA will cover multiple geriatric domains and employ a standard set of validated assessment tools. Primary endpoints will be physical decline measured with the 30-s Chair-Stand-Test at three months (palliative setting) and unplanned hospital admissions at six months (curative setting). Additional outcomes include QoL, treatment toxicity and adherence, occurrence of polypharmacy, potential drug interactions, potential inappropriate medications, and survival. The primary outcomes will be analyzed using a mixed model regression analysis (30-s chair stand test) and linear regression models (unplanned hospitalizations), with an intention to treat approach. Power calculations reveal the need to enroll 134 (palliative) and 188 (curative) patients. Discussion The present study will examine whether CGA, as an additional intervention to antineoplastic treatment, can improve endpoints valued by older patients with cancer. Inclusion began November 2020 and is ongoing, with 37 and 29 patients recruited April 15th, 2021. Registration: NCT04686851

Gastric cancer; Metastasectomy; Oligometastasis Cáncer gástrico; Metastasectomía; Oligometástasis Càncer gàstric; Metastasectomia; Oligometàstasi Background Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Methods In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Introduction: Appropriate patient selection based on functional status is crucial when considering older adults for palliative chemotherapy. This pre-planned analysis of the randomized NORDIC9-study explored the prognostic value of four functional status measures regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in vulnerable older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy. Materials and methods: Patients ≥70 years of age with mCRC not candidates for standard full-dose combination chemotherapy were randomized to receive full-dose S1 or reduced-dose S1 + oxaliplatin. At baseline, functional status was assessed using ECOG performance status (ECOG PS), frailty phenotype, Geriatric 8 (G8), and Vulnerable Elderly Survey-13 (VES-13). Multivariable regression models were applied and C-statistics were estimated. Results: In total, 160 patients with a median age of 78 years (IQR: 76–81) were included. While in univariate analyses, ECOG PS, frailty phenotype, and VES-13 were statistically significantly associated with differences in OS between subgroups, G8 was not (HR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.99–2.41, p = 0.050). In multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and treatment allocation, we found significant differences between subgroups for all applied tools and with C-statistics in the moderate range for ECOG PS and VES-13. Concerning PFS, statistically significant differences were observed between subgroups of ECOG PS, G8, and VES-13 both in uni- and multivariable analyses, but not for frailty phenotype. Discussion: In this Nordic cohort of vulnerable older patients with mCRC, baseline ECOG PS, frailty phenotype, G8, and VES-13 showed prognostic value regarding overall survival, and moderate predictive value of models based on ECOG PS and VES-13 was demonstrated. publishedVersion

Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is effective in patients with metastatic mismatch-repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC); however, data on treatment with neoadjuvant ICI in patients with locally advanced CRC are limited. From March 2019 to June 2020, five Danish oncological centers treated 10 patients with a treatment-naïve dMMR CRC with pre-operative pembrolizumab, 9 with a non-metastatic, unresectable colon cancer and 1 with a locally advanced rectum cancer. All 10 patients were evaluated regularly at a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, and they all had a radical resection after a median of 8 cycles (range 2-13) of pembrolizumab. A microscopic evaluation of the resected tumors revealed no remaining tumor cells in 5 patients, while 5 still had tumor cells present. The patients were given no additional therapy. No recurrences were reported after a median follow-up of 26 months (range 23-38.5 months). Biopsies from Danish patients with CRC are routinely screened for dMMR proteins. In 2017, data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group showed that 19% (565/3000) of the patients with colon cancer and 1.5% (19/1279) of those with rectum cancer had an dMMR tumor. Among the patients with MMR determination, 26% (99/384) patients had a T4 dMMR colon cancer; thus, the 10 patients treated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab comprised about 9% of the patients with a T4 dMMR colon cancer (9/99) and 5% of patients with dMMR rectal cancer (1/19). Therapy with pembrolizumab was feasible and effective. Larger prospective trials are needed to confirm our findings. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background Calmangafodipir (CaM, PledOx) demonstrated efficacy in preventing patient-reported chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in a randomized phase 2 study in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The Preventive Treatment of OxaLiplatin Induced peripherAl neuRopathy (POLAR) program aimed to assess efficacy and safety of CaM in the prevention of CIPN in patients treated with oxaliplatin in adjuvant (POLAR-A, ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT04034355) or metastatic (POLAR-M, ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT03654729) settings. Methods Two randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials investigated patient-reported, moderate-to-severe CIPN 9 months after beginning folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin therapy with or without CaM. In POLAR-A, patients with stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive CaM 5 μmol/kg or placebo. In POLAR-M, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive CaM 5 μmol/kg, CaM 2 μmol/kg, or placebo. Results POLAR-A (n = 301) and POLAR-M (n = 291) were terminated early following unexpected hypersensitivity reactions in CaM-treated patients. In a combined analysis of month 9 CIPN (primary endpoint) data from both trials (CaM 5 μmol/kg, n = 175; placebo, n = 176), 54.3% of patients in the CaM group had moderate-to-severe CIPN compared with 40.3% in the placebo group. The estimated relative risk for moderate-to-severe CIPN at month 9 was 1.37 (95% confidence interval = 1.01 to 1.86; P = .045). A higher proportion of patients experienced serious hypersensitivity reactions across both trials with CaM treatment (3.6%) than with placebo (0.8%). Conclusion The POLAR clinical studies failed to meet their primary endpoint. These results highlight the challenges of targeting oxidative stress for preventing CIPN in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings.

Oesophageal neoplasm; Oligometastasis; Radiosurgery Neoplàsia esofàgica; Oligometàstasi; Radiocirurgia Neoplasia esofágica; Oligometástasis; Radiocirugía Background Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Objective To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. Material and methods European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (

Background Patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have a poor prognosis. The introduction of BRAF targeted therapy with encorafenib and weekly administered cetuximab have shown improved survival with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 4.3 months. However, a regimen with cetuximab given every second week may have comparable efficacy and is more convenient for patients. While BRAF targeted therapy is a new standard therapy in pre-treated patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC, resistance invariably occurs and is an emerging challenge. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of cetuximab given every second week in combination with daily encorafenib and to explore the correlation between markers of resistance and outcome. Methods The study is an open label, single arm, phase II study, investigating the efficacy and tolerability of cetuximab given every second week in combination with encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC. Furthermore, we will be investigating mechanisms of response and resistance against BRAF targeted therapy though comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor tissue and blood for circulating tumor DNA analysis. A total of 53 patients (19 + 34 in two steps) will be included according to Simon’s optimal two stage design. The primary end point of the study is 2 months PFS rate. Discussion By combining BRAF inhibitor with cetuximab given every second week we can halve the number of visits in the hospital compared to the currently approved regimen with weekly cetuximab. This seems particularly relevant in a group of patients with a median overall survival of 9.3 months. Resistance after initial response to targeted therapy can be either adaptive (e.g., epigenetic, or transcriptomic alterations) or acquired (selective genetic alterations - e.g., activating de novo mutations) resistance. It is of great importance to untangle these complex mechanisms of resistance in patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC to improve treatment strategies in the future potentially even further. Trial registration EU Clinical Trial Register, Eudract no. 2020-003283-10. Registered on 11 November 2020.

AIM: Academic and high volume hospitals have better outcome for pancreatic cancer (PC) surgery, but there are no reports on oncological treatment. We aimed to determine the influence of facility types on overall survival (OS) after treatment with chemotherapy for inoperable PC.MATERIAL AND METHODS: 2,657 patients were treated in Denmark from 2012 to 2018 and registered in the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database. Facilities were classified as either secondary oncological units or comprehensive, tertiary referral cancer centers.RESULTS: The average yearly number of patients seen at the four tertiary facilities was 71, and 31 at the four secondary facilities. Patients at secondary facilities were older, more frequently had severe comorbidity and lived in non-urban municipalities. As compared to combination chemotherapy, monotherapy with gemcitabine was used more often (59%) in secondary facilities than in tertiary (34%). The unadjusted median OS was 7.7 months at tertiary and 6.1 months at secondary facilities. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.16 (confidence interval 1.07-1.27) demonstrated an excess risk of death for patients treated at secondary facilities, which disappeared when taking type of chemotherapy used into account. Hence, more use of combination chemotherapy was associated with the observed improved OS of patients treated at tertiary facilities. Declining HR's per year of first treatment indicated improved outcomes with time, however the difference among facility types remained significant.DISCUSSION: Equal access to modern combination chemotherapy at all facilities on a national level is essential to ensure equality in treatment results.

Background: In clinical oncology, systemic 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its oral pro-drugs are used to treat a broad group of solid tumours. Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme deficiency are at elevated risk of toxicity if treated with standard doses of 5-FU. DPYD genotyping and measurements of plasma uracil concentration (DPD phenotyping) can be applied as tests for DPD deficiency. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended pre-treatment DPD testing to reduce the risk of 5-FU-related toxicity. Objectives: The objective of this study is to present the current evidence for DPD testing in routine oncological practice. Methods: Two systematic literature searches were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We identified studies examining the possible benefit of DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping on the toxicity risk. Findings: Nine and 12 studies met the criteria for using DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping, respectively. Conclusions: The evidence supporting either DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping as pre-treatment tests to reduce 5-FU toxicity is poor. Further evidence is still needed to fully understand and guide clinicians to dose by DPD activity.

3568 Background: FTD/TPI is approved for patients (pts) with refractory mCRC. FTD/TPI + BEV has been evaluated in refractory mCRC in phase 1 and 2 trials and shown efficacy and tolerability, but few head-to-head studies compare FTD/TPI + BEV with FTD/TPI. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes with FTD/TPI + BEV and FTD/TPI monotherapy in mCRC. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; ASCO, ESMO, and AACR proceedings (past 3 years); Clinicaltrials.gov and UMIN registries; systematic review bibliographies; gray literature; and guidelines through June 2021 for studies involving pts with mCRC treated with FTD/TPI + BEV or FTD/TPI. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and prospective observational studies of previously treated pts with mCRC were evaluated. Outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse event (AE) rates, and AE-related discontinuation rates. Fixed and random effects models based on inverse-variance weighting were used to estimate relative effects and pooled absolute outcomes for ORR, DCR, AE rates, and AE-related discontinuation rates. PFS and OS were estimated from pooled Kaplan–Meier curves using Guyot’s algorithm. Results: Twenty-nine of 875 screened publications were selected, which included a total of 10,285 pts and reported on 5 RCTs, 11 non-RCTs, and 10 prospective observational studies. In an RCT (n = 93; Pfeiffer et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020), FTD/TPI + BEV was associated with significant reductions in risks for progression and death versus FTD/TPI. Pooled efficacy outcomes were higher with FTD/TPI + BEV than FTD/TPI (Table). Pooled rates for grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia, asthenia/fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were similar with FTD/TPI + BEV and FTD/TPI, although grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred more frequently with FTD/TPI + BEV than FTD/TPI (43% vs 29%). AE-related discontinuation rates were similar (Table). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that FTD/TPI + BEV provides benefits over FTD/TPI in pts with refractory mCRC and has a similar safety profile, but it is associated with a higher rate of grade ≥3 neutropenia. Limitations of the analysis include study design heterogeneity. Data from RCTs (eg, phase 3 SUNLIGHT trial [NCT04737187]) are required to confirm these findings. [Table: see text]