Search

Summary: Background: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer. However, microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) shows a low response to PD-1 inhibitors. Antiangiogenic therapy can enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy, but it still cannot meet clinical needs. Increasing evidence supported a close relationship between gut microbiome and anti-PD-1 efficacy. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and tislelizumab and fruquintinib in refractory MSS mCRC. Methods: In the phase II trial, MSS mCRC patients were administered FMT plus tislelizumab and fruquintinib as a third-line or above treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), safety and quality of life. Feces and peripheral blood were collected for exploratory biomarker analysis. This study is registered with Chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2100046768. Findings: From May 10, 2021 to January 17, 2022, 20 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 13.7 months. Median PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI 4.1–15.1). Median OS was 13.7 months (95% CI 9.3–17.7). Median DoR was 8.1 months (95% CI 1.7–10.6). ORR was 20% (95% CI 5.7–43.7). DCR was 95% (95% CI 75.1–99.9). CBR was 60% (95% CI 36.1–80.9). Nineteen patients (95%) experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Six patients (30%) had grade 3–4 TRAEs, with the most common being albuminuria (10%), urine occult blood (10%), fecal occult blood (10%), hypertension (5%), hyperglycemia (5%), liver dysfunction (5%), hand-foot skin reaction (5%), and hypothyroidism (5%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Responders had a high-abundance of Proteobacteria and Lachnospiraceae family and a low-abundance of Actinobacteriota and Bifidobacterium. The treatment did not change the structure of peripheral blood TCR repertoire. However, the expanded TCRs exhibited the characteristics of antigen-driven responses in responders. Interpretation: FMT plus tislelizumab and fruquintinib as third-line or above treatment showed improved survival and manageable safety in refractory MSS mCRC, suggesting a valuable new treatment option for this patient population. Funding: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82102954 to Wensi Zhao) and the Special Project of Central Government for Local Science and Technology Development of Hubei Province (ZYYD2020000169 to Yongshun Chen).

Background & Aims: In contrast to mismatch repair deficient colorectal carcinoma (CRC), MMR proficient (pMMR) CRC does not respond to immune checkpoint blockade. We studied immune checkpoint stimulation via glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor receptor-related protein (GITR) on ex vivo functionality of human tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) isolated from pMMR primary CRC and liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: Using lymphocytes from resected tumor, adjacent tissues, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of 132 pMMR primary CRC or CRLM patients, we determined GITR expression and the in vitro T-cell agonistic activity of recombinant GITR ligation. Results: Here, we show that GITR was overexpressed on TIL when compared with other stimulatory immune checkpoints (4-1BB, OX40). Its expression was enhanced in TIL compared with PBMC and adjacent tissues. Among CD4+ TIL, GITR expression was primarily expressed by CD45RA- FoxP3hi activated regulatory T cells. Within CD8+ TIL, GITR was predominantly expressed on functionally exhausted and putative tumor-reactive CD103+ CD39+ TIL. Strikingly, recombinant GITRL reinvigorated ex vivo TIL responses by significantly enhancing CD4+ and CD8+ TIL numbers. Dual treatment with GITRL and nivolumab (anti-PD1) enhanced CD8+ TIL expansion compared with GITRL monotherapy. Moreover, GITRL/anti-PD1 dual therapy further improved anti-PD1-mediated reinvigoration of interferon gamma secretion by exhausted CD8 TIL from primary CRC. Conclusions: GITR is overexpressed on CD4+ and CD8+ TIL from pMMR CRC and CRLM. Agonistic targeting of GITR enhances ex vivo human TIL functionality and may therefore be a promising approach for novel monotherapy or combined immunotherapies in primary pMRR CRC and CRLM.

Summary: Background: Microsatellite stable (MSS) and RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients are characterized by an immunosuppressive microenvironment and a low response rate to immunotherapy. Chemotherapy and anti-angiogenesis therapy have been reported to potentially promote immunotherapy response. This study aims to assess the preliminary anti-tumor activity and safety of sintilimab plus bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as a treatment option for patients with RAS-mutant MSS mCRC. Methods: This study was an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial in China. Patients with unresectable, RAS-mutant and MSS metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma received treatment by intravenous sintilimab (200 mg, day 1) plus bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg, day 1), oxaliplatin (135 mg/m2, day 1) and oral capecitabine (1 g/m2, day 1–14) in each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events. Biomarker analysis was performed to identify potential predictors of good response to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04194359. Findings: Between April 2021 and December 2021, 25 patients were enrolled. Two (8%) patients showed complete response (CR), 19 (76%) had partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) presented with stable disease. ORR reached 84% (95% CI, 63.9–95.5) and the disease control rate was 100% (95% CI, 86.3–100). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.2 months for the full analysis set. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in all grades were anemia (21/25, 84%), neutropenia (20/25, 80%), and hand-foot syndrome (14/25, 56%). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were neutropenia (3/25, 12%) and increased alanine transaminase (2/25, 8%). No grade 5 adverse events occurred. In the exploration of biomarkers, 5 patients could be characterized as TTN/OBSCN “double-hit” after treatment, and the copy number variants burden was significantly decreased in tumor tissues after treatment compared with the baseline. Nanostring panel RNA sequencing analysis indicated a better tumor immune microenvironment cell infiltration in CR/PR patients compared with non-CR/PR patients as well as the PFS-long (≥12.5 months) group compared with the PFS-short group. Interpretation: Combination treatment with sintilimab plus bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as first-line treatment demonstrated a promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in RAS-mutant, MSS and unresectable mCRC. Exploratory biomarker assessment analysis showed that some RAS-mutant and MSS patients changed into “immune-hot” subtype after the treatment. Funding: This study was supported by the Key R&D Program of Zhejiang Province (2021C03125 to Ying Yuan), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81872481 to Ying Yuan, 82072624 to Kefeng Ding), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 226-2022-00009 to Kefeng Ding), and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. LY22H160024 to Hanguang Hu).

Summary: Background: Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibodies plus multikinase inhibitors have shown encouraging activity in several tumour types, including colorectal cancer. This study assessed regorafenib plus nivolumab in patients with microsatellite stable/mismatch repair-proficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: This single-arm, open-label, multicentre phase 2 study enrolled adults from 13 sites in the USA with previously treated advanced microsatellite stable/mismatch repair-proficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Eligible patients had known extended RAS and BRAF status, progression or intolerance to no more than two (for extended RAS mutant) or three (for extended RAS wild type) lines of systemic chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Regorafenib 80 mg/day was administered orally for 3 weeks on/1 week off (increased to 120 mg/day if 80 mg/day was well tolerated) with intravenous nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Exploratory endpoints included biomarkers associated with antitumour activity. Patients who received at least one dose of study intervention were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. Tumour assessments were carried out every 8 weeks for the first year, and every 12 weeks thereafter until progressive disease/end of the study, and objective response rate was analysed after all patients had met the criteria for primary completion of five post-baseline scans and either 10-months’ follow-up or drop out. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04126733. Findings: Between 14 October 2019 and 14 January 2020, 94 patients were enrolled, 70 received treatment. Five patients had a partial response, yielding an objective response rate of 7% (95% CI 2.4–15.9; p = 0.27). All responders had no liver metastases at baseline. Median overall survival (data immature) and progression-free survival were 11.9 months (95% CI 7.0–not evaluable) and 1.8 months (95% CI 1.8–2.4), respectively. Most patients (97%, 68/70) experienced a treatment-related adverse event; 51% were grade 1 or 2, 40% were grade 3, 3% were grade 4, and 3% were grade 5. The most common (≥20%) events were fatigue (26/70), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (19/70), maculopapular rash (17/70), increased blood bilirubin (14/70), and decreased appetite (14/70). Higher baseline expression of tumour biomarkers of immune sensitivity correlated with antitumour activity. Interpretation: Further studies are warranted to identify subgroups of patients with clinical characteristics or biomarkers that would benefit most from treatment with regorafenib plus nivolumab. Funding: Bayer/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Objective: Microsatellite instability (MSI) due to defective DNA mismatch repair has emerged as an actionable biomarker in advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). Currently, there are no treatment patterns and outcomes data in non-MSI-high (non-MSI-H) or mismatch repair proficient (pMMR) aEC patients following prior systemic therapy (FPST). Our goal was to describe real-world data in this population in the US in 2019 and prior years. Methods: Endometrial Cancer Health Outcomes (ECHO) is a retrospective patient chart review study conducted in the US. Patients with non-MSI-H/pMMR aEC and progression between 06/01/2016–06/30/2019 FPST were eligible. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and overall survival (OS), separately by treatment category. Results: A total of 165 eligible patients initiated second-line therapy with chemotherapy ± bevacizumab (n = 140) or hormonal therapy (n = 25). Median age was 66.0 years at aEC diagnosis, 70.2% were Stage IIIB-IV, 40.0% had ECOG ≥ 2 at second-line therapy initiation. Median rwPFS was 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.0–6.0) for patients receiving chemotherapy ± bevacizumab and 5.5 months (95% CI: 3.0–29.0) for those receiving hormonal therapy. Median OS was 10.0 months (95% CI: 8.0–13.0) and 9.0 months (95% CI: 6.0-NA) in these groups, respectively. Conclusions: Non-MSI-H/pMMR patients who initiated second-line therapy with chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or hormonal therapy had poor clinical outcomes with a median survival less than 1 year and rwPFS less than 6 months. This was the first study to define the clinical unmet need in patients with non-MSI-H/pMMR aEC with conventional therapy.

Background: Cohorts A, C, and E of the phase Ib KEYNOTE-651 study evaluated pembrolizumab + binimetinib ± chemotherapy in microsatellite stable/mismatch repair-proficient metastatic colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus binimetinib 30 mg twice daily alone (cohort A; previously treated with any chemotherapy) or with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (cohort C; previously untreated) or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (cohort E; previously treated with 1 line of therapy including fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin-based regimen) every 2 weeks. Binimetinib dose-escalation to 45 mg twice daily was planned in all cohorts using a modified toxicity probability interval design (target dose-limiting toxicity [DLT], 30%). The primary endpoint was safety; investigator-assessed objective response rate was secondary., Results: In cohort A, 1/6 patients (17%) had DLTs with binimetinib 30 mg; none occurred in 14 patients with 45 mg. In cohort C, 3/9 patients (33%) had DLTs with binimetinib 30 mg; dose was not escalated to 45 mg. In cohort E, 1/5 patients (20%) had DLTs with binimetinib 30 mg; 5/10 patients (50%) had DLTs with 45 mg. Enrollment was stopped in cohort E binimetinib 45 mg and deescalated to 30 mg; 2/4 additional patients (50%) had DLTs with binimetinib 30 mg (total 3/9 [33%] had DLTs with binimetinib 30 mg). Objective response rate was 0% in cohort A, 9% in cohort C, and 15% in cohort E., Conclusion: Per DLT criteria, binimetinib + pembrolizumab (cohort A) was tolerable, binimetinib + pembrolizumab + 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (cohort C) did not qualify for binimetinib dose escalation to 45 mg, and binimetinib + pembrolizumab + 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (cohort E) required binimetinib dose reduction from 45 to 30 mg. No new safety findings were observed across cohorts. There was no apparent additive efficacy when binimetinib + pembrolizumab was added to chemotherapy. Data did not support continued enrollment in cohorts C and E., Competing Interests: Disclosure E. X. Chen reports advisory/consultancy roles from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK; research funding to their institution from AstraZeneca, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Zymeworks, and 1Globe. P. Kavan reports advisory/consultancy role with Merck; Expert Testimony for Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and an institutional educational grant to their institution. M. Tehfe reports advisory/consultancy roles with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, BMS, Taiho, and Pfizer; and speaker bureau for BMS and Taiho. J. S. Kortmansky reports research funding to their institution from Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and Genentech. M. B. Sawyer reports honoraria from Ipsen, BMS, Mylan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Sandoz, Celgene, Servier, Novartis, Leo, Taiho, and Shire; advisory/consultancy roles with AstraZeneca, Leo, and Immuneering; expert testimony for AstraZeneca; research funding to their institution from AstraZeneca and BMS; and travel/accommodation expenses from Ipsen. E. G. Chiorean reports advisory/consultancy roles with Astellas, Bayer, Cardiff, Foundation, G1 Therapeutics, Ipsen, Noxxon, Novartis, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Pfizer, and Stemline; research funding to their institution from Aadi, Biosplice, BioMed Valley, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Clovis, Corcept, Erasca, Fibrogen, Lona, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Novartis, Rafael, and Stemline; and travel/accommodation from G1 Therapeutics. C. H. Lieu reports research funding to their institution from Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. M. Fakih reports advisory/consultancy roles with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Mirati, Nouscom, PsiOxus, Roche/Genentech, and Taiho. K. Spencer reports advisory/consultancy roles from QED Therapeutics, Helsinn, Lynx Group, and Caris. C. Li, P. Leconte, and D. Adelberg report employment with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; P. Leconte and D. Adelberg report stock ownership at Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. R. Kim reports honoraria from Taiho; advisory/consultancy roles with Bayer Servier, Ipsen and Roche; and speaker bureau for Eisai, Pfizer, and Incyte. B. Polite, L. Wong, and J. Chaves report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The phase 1b KEYNOTE-651 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in microsatellite stable or mismatch repair-proficient metastatic colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with microsatellite stable or mismatch repair-proficient metastatic colorectal cancer received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (previously untreated; cohort B) or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (previously treated with fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin; cohort D) every 2 weeks. Primary end point was safety; investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 was secondary and biomarker analysis was exploratory., Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled in cohort B and 32 in cohort D; median follow-up was 30.2 and 33.5 months, respectively. One dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 small intestine obstruction) occurred in cohort D. In cohort B, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 18 patients (58%), most commonly neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (n = 5 each). In cohort D, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 17 patients (53%), most commonly neutropenia (n = 7). No grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. Objective response rate was 61% in cohort B (KRAS wildtype: 71%; KRAS mutant: 53%) and 25% in cohort D (KRAS wildtype: 47%; KRAS mutant: 6%). In both cohorts, PD-L1 combined positive score and T-cell-inflamed gene expression profiles were higher and HER2 expression was lower in responders than nonresponders. No association between tumor mutational burden and response was observed., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan demonstrated an acceptable AE profile. Efficacy data appeared comparable with current standard of care (including by KRAS mutation status). Biomarker analyses were hypothesis-generating, warranting further exploration., Gov Identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03374254., Competing Interests: Disclosure R. Kim reports honoraria from Taiho; advisory/consultancy roles with Bayer Servier, Ipsen, and Roche; and speakers bureau for Eisai, Pfizer, and Incyte. M. Tehfe reports advisory/consultancy roles with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, BMS, Taiho, and Pfizer; and speakers bureau for BMS and Taiho. P. Kavan reports advisory/consultancy role with Merck; expert testimony for Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and an institutional educational grant to their institution. J. S. Kortmansky reports research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Genentech. E. X. Chen reports advisory/consultancy roles from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and GSK and research funding to their institution from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, BMS, Novartis, Roche, Zymeworks, and 1Globe. C. H. Lieu reports advisory/consultancy roles with Natera; and research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. M. Fakih reports advisory/consultancy roles with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Mirati, Nouscom, PsiOxus, Roche/Genentech, and Taiho. K. Spencer reports advisory/consultancy roles with QED Therapeutics, Helsinn, Lynx Group, and Caris. Q. Zhao reports stock ownership at Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. R. Predoiu, C. Li, P. Leconte, and D. Adelberg report employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. P. Leconte and D. Adelberg report stock ownership at Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. E. G. Chiorean reports advisory/consultancy roles with Astellas, Bayer, Cardiff, Foundation, G1 Therapeutics, Ipsen, Noxxon, Novartis, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Pfizer, and Stemline; research funding to their institution from Aadi, Biosplice, BioMed Valley, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis, Corcept, Erasca, Fibrogen, Lona, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Novartis, Rafael, and Stemline; and travel/accommodations from G1 Therapeutics. J. Chaves and L. Wong report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have marked a new era of cancer treatment, showing remarkable efficacy in a wide range of solid malignancies. In colorectal cancer (CRC), however, the therapeutic potential of ICIs is limited to the small group (≈5%) of patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/high microsatellite instable (MSI-H) tumours, which are characterised by high mutational/neo-antigen burden, and an inflammatory tumour microenvironment with abundant tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. Over the last few years, research has focused on immuno-modulatory strategies that could overcome the inherent resistance to ICIs that is observed in the vast group (≈95%) of patients with mismatch repair proficient (pMMR)/microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours. Among these, the combination of ICIs with multi-kinase inhibitors has gained traction in preclinical studies and clinical trials. Thanks to their multiple targets and mechanisms of action, generally involving key cancer pathways such as oncogenesis, angiogenesis, metastasis, and tumour immunity, these agents can exert synergistic effects with ICIs, eventually turning inherently cold cancers into hot tumours, that can be efficiently recognised and targeted by an activated immune system. Regorafenib is routinely used for chemorefractory CRC with limited efficacy. Preliminary evidence, however, suggests that this multi-kinase inhibitor could be an optimal combination partner for ICIs. In this review article, we explain the biological rationale underlying the synergism between regorafenib and ICIs, discuss the available clinical data in CRC, and take a glance into future perspectives by presenting ongoing trials and possible research developments in this setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Alain Hendlisz - Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria: Amgen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Sirtex. Research funding (inst): Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Teva Pharma. Travel grants: Merck, Roche, Sirtex. Francesco Sclafani - Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria: AMAL Therapeutics, Bayer, BMS, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Nordic Pharma, Roche. Research funding (inst): Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Roche, Sanofi. Travel grants: Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Servier. Leadership roles: Co-Chair EORTC Task Force Colon, Rectum, Anal Canal. Other: Chief Investigator of the REGINA trial (NCT04503694). The other authors declare no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2019, researchers reported a remarkable 33% response rate and a median progression free survival of almost 8 months in a study of Regorafenib and Nivolumab (RegoNivo) with 24 Japanese patients with chemo-refractory MSS-mCRC. These clinical outcomes were subsequently not replicated in clinical trials in North America. One hypothesis that has been put forth is that trials in North America had a higher percentage of patients with liver metastases who are less likely to respond to Regorafenib and Nivolumab. We propose an alternate hypothesis reflected by ECOG Performance Status = 0., Methods: We reexamined the available trial data on RegoNivo for MSS-mCRC in the original Japanese trial and compared it to subsequent clinical trials of the same combination and setting in North America., Results: 100% of patients on the original Japanese trial were ECOG PS = 0 whereas those in the subsequent trials in North America included a majority of patients with ECOG PS = 1. The percentage of patients with liver metastases is not as clearly different among these trials compared to ECOG PS 0., Conclusions: ECOG PS may represent a composite marker of patient physical activity and/or fitness and disease biology. Although ECOG PS and physical activity are not completely the same, ECOG PS and physical activity of patients has not been fully investigated in the context of response to RegoNivo. Alternatively, it is possible that poor ECOG PS may also reflect unfavorable tumor biology, and such tumors might progress before RegoNivo has a chance to provide clinical benefit., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)