Search

Trials including drug further approved by health authorities involved 84/447 (18.8%) of patients and had an overall response rate of 32.9% (26/79 evaluable pts). B Introduction: b Previous reviews of phase 1 trials in oncology have reported a treatment response rate of 4%-6% and a toxicity-related mortality rate of 0.5%. All patients were assessed for toxicity and 382/447 (85%) for treatment response. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the guideline endorsed first choice for patients with deficient mismatch repair or microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) mCRC, however a significant proportion experience primary or secondary resistance. BRAF V600E mutated (BRAFm) and dMMR/MSI-H mCRC can be treated with BRAF + EGFR inhibitors but specific data on the efficacy after progression to ICIs are missing., Methods: We collected consecutive patients with BRAFm dMMR/MSI-H mCRC treated from 2017 to 2024 with a combination of BRAFi+EGFRi+/-MEKi, after disease progression on ICIs. A control cohort of BRAFm pMMR/MSS mCRC patients treated with encorafenib+cetuximab+/-binimetinib from 2nd line was used., Results: dMMR/MSI-H (n = 50) BRAFm mCRC patients were more often > 70-year-old, with right-sided primary tumors, without liver but more lymphnode metastases than pMMR/MSS (n = 170). They were treated more frequently beyond 2nd line and 45 % were primary progressors to ICIs. Lower ORR (18 % versus 32 %, p = 0.09) and DCR (60 % versus 73 %, p = 0.11) was seen without reaching significance in dMMR/MSI-H as compared to pMMR/MSS patients. After a median follow-up of 14.04 months, no differences in PFS (median 5.13 versus 4.50 months, HR 0.83, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.20, p = 0.31) and OS (median 10.75 versus 9.11 months, HR 0.89, 95 %CI: 0.59-1.32, p = 0.55) were observed., Conclusions: Our results show that BRAFm dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients benefit from BRAFi+EGFRi+/-MEKi after progression under ICIs. Despite lower ORR and DCR, the outcome is not different from that observed in pMMR/MSS BRAFm CRC and is in line with the results of the BEACON registration trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest DT reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Roche, Servier, and Pierre Fabre. DM participated in advisory board for Amgen, Servier, Merck, MSD, Takeda, G1, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Regeneron; received honoraria as invited speaker for Medison, COR2ED, JE, 21up, Seagen, Takeda, Taiho, Amgen, Servier, Merck, Onkowissen, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, GSK; reports institutional non-financial interests for Amgen and Servier. GP reports grant from Merck Serono, honoraria from Servier and Sanofi. EE has received personal honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cure Teq AG, Hoffman La – Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Repare Therapeutics Inc., RIN Institute Inc., Sanofi, Seagen International, GmbH, Servier, and Takeda. CC served as expert testimony for Amgen; received honoraria as invited speaker for Bayer, Merck Serono, Servier; participated in advisory board for MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pierre- Fabre, Roche, Takeda; reports institutional financial interest for Bayer as Coordinating PI, Hutchinson as Local PI, Merck as Coordinating PI, Roche as Coordinating PI, Seagen as Local PI, Servier as Coordinating PI. FP reported receiving institutional research grants from BMS, Incyte, Agenus, Amgen, Lilly and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Amgen, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Servier, Bayer, Takeda, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Rottapharm, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Seagen/Pfizer, Beigene. SL reports research funding to institution from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Amgen, Bristol- Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre- Fabre, Roche, Servier; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Takeda. CG has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Servier, Sanofi, Merck, Pierre Fabre, MSD and has received support for travel to meetings from Pierre Fabre and Servier. JT received honoraria as invited speaker for Amgen, Astellas, BMS, Merk, MSD, Novartis; participated in advisory board for Amgen, BMS, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Rottapharm, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda and as expert testimony for Takeda; participated in steering committee of clinical trial for Novartis. All the other authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated., Patients and Methods: All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed., Results: Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283)., Conclusion: In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Selective rearranged during transfection (RET) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, pralsetinib, demonstrated clinical efficacy and was well tolerated in lung and thyroid cancers with RET gene mutations or fusions in clinical trials. While the latter focused on the risk of pneumonitis, there is a lack of data regarding other types of infectious risks associated with pralsetinib. Herein, we report the case of a 53-year-old patient with a CCDC6-RET fusion neuroendocrine tumor, who achieved a partial response with pralsetinib as the fifth-line therapy. Of particular note, during pralsetinib therapy, the clinical course was complicated by five severe infectious events, namely, two oxygen-requiring pneumonias, two distinct spondylodiscitis, and one pneumocystis. Our study highlights the increased risk of any type of opportunistic infectious event with pralsetinib, but not selpercatinib, which is probably caused by off-target JAK1/2 inhibition., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Poumeaud, Jaffrelot, Gomez-Roca, Korakis, Leonardi, Joly, Mazières, Guimbaud, Fares and Alouani.)

Background: One randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated significant efficacy of ICI in deficient DNA mismatch repair system/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer. However, few studies have compared ICI with CT in other advanced dMMR/MSI-H digestive tumors., Methods: In this multicenter study, we included patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive tumors treated with chemotherapy and/or ICIs. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups, a CT group and an immunotherapy (IO) group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A propensity score approach using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to deal with potential differences between the two groups., Results: 133 patients (45.1/27.1/27.8% with gastric/small bowel/other carcinomas) were included. The majority of patients received ICI in 1st (29.1%) or 2nd line (44.4%). The 24-month PFS rates were 7.9% in the CT group and 71.2% in the IO group. Using the IPTW method, IO treatment was associated with better PFS (HR=0.227; 95% CI 0.147-0.351; p < 0.0001). The overall response rate was 26.3% in the CT group versus 60.7% in the IO group (p < 0.001) with prolonged duration of disease control in the IO group (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors of PFS for patients treated with IO were good performance status, absence of liver metastasis and prior primary tumor resection, whereas no association was found for the site of the primary tumor., Conclusions: In the absence of randomized trials, our study highlights the superior efficacy of ICI compared with standard-of-care therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive cancer, regardless of tumor type, with acceptable toxicity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AH reports advisory/consultancy fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly and Company, Incyte Corporation, QED Therapeutics. AT has received personal fees from MSD, BMS, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Incyte Biosciences, Viatris, AstraZeneca. CG has participated in consulting and/or advisory fees for Servier, Sanofi, Merck, has received honoraria as invited speaker from Pierre Fabre, and has received support for travel to meetings from Amgen. DT reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, MSD, BMS, AZ, Roche, Sanofi; research funding from Sandoz, AstraZenenca, Servier, MSD; travel grants from Pierre Fabre, MSD, Servier, Roche. EAl reports consultancy and honoraria from Servier, AMGEN, MSD and Merck Serono. EAu reports honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi. FS reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from AMAL Therapeutics, Bayer, BMS, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Merck, Nordic Pharma, Roche, Servier; research funding (institutional) from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Roche, Sanofi, Travel grants from Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Servier; and leadership roles at Co-Chair EORTC Task Force Colon, Rectum, Anal Canal. JT has received honoraria as a speaker or in an advisory role from Sanofi, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, AstraZeneca and MSD. MBA has received honoraria as a speaker or in an advisory role from BMS, AMGEN, INCYTE, Servier, Pierre Fabre, MercK Serono, Deciphera, Mundipharma, Bayer. RC has received personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exeliom Biosciences, Enterome Bioscience, MSD Oncology, Mylan Medical, Pierre Fabre, Servier and non-financial support. RG reports advisory fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre and travel expenses from BMS. SK reports consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from Amgen, BeiGene, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, and research funding from Behringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche. SP reports honoraria as a speaker or in an advisory role from Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Servier, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Bayer, Sanofi. TAn reports attending advisory board meetings and receiving consulting fees from Astellas, Aptitude Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, GamaMabs Pharma Sa, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Nordic Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Servier and Transgène; honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche Sanofi, Seagen and Servier and support for meetings from Merck & Co. Inc. and Servier. TAp reports honoraria from Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Servier and advisory fees from BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre. TM reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, AAA, Sanofi, and research funding from Amgen; travel grants from Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi. VH reports consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from AAA, Amgen, Esteve, Ipsen, Deciphera, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The outstanding efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic dMMR/MSI gastro-intestinal (GI) cancers has led to a rapid increase in the number of patients treated. However, 20-30% of patients experience primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIPR) and need better characterization., Methods: This AGEO real-world study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of ICIs and identified clinical variables associated with ICIPR in patients with metastatic dMMR/MSI GI cancers treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2022., Results: 399 patients were included, 284 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 115 with non-CRC, mostly treated by an anti-PD(L)1 (88.0%). PFS at 24 months was 55.8% (95CI [50.8-61.2]) and OS at 48 months was 59.1% (95CI [53.0-65.9]). ORR was 51.0%, and 25.1% of patients were ICIPR. There was no statistical difference in ORR, DCR, PFS, or OS between CRC and non-CRC groups. In multivariable analysis, ICIPR was associated with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (OR = 3.36), liver metastases (OR = 2.19), peritoneal metastases (OR = 2.00), ≥1 previous line of treatment (OR = 1.83), and age≤50 years old (OR = 1.76)., Conclusion: These five clinical factors associated with primary resistance to ICIs should be considered by physicians to guide treatment choice in GI dMMR/MSI metastatic cancer patients., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Purpose: Only one-half of deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) demonstrate durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Given preclinical data indicating that liver metastases sequester activated CD8 + T cells from systemic circulation, we examined clinical outcome by metastatic site., Patients and Methods: In a retrospective cohort of patients with d-MMR mCRCs treated at multiple centers in France (n = 66), we sought to validate data from a U.S. cohort, and performed pooled analysis (n = 104). All patients received first-line ICI monotherapy. Metastatic site was analyzed in relationship to tumor response (RECIST version 1.1), and with progression-free survival (PFS) by multivariable stratified Cox regression after adjustment for covariates., Results: Objective responses were achieved in 38/66 (58%) of patients in the validation cohort. Best tumor response included 13 (20%) complete responses (CR), 25 (38%) partial responses (PR), 16 (25%) stable disease, and 11 (17%) progressive disease (PD). One-year and 5-year PFS rates were 73% and 67%, respectively; 18 (27%) patients progressed during immunotherapy. Best tumor response was attenuated in patients with liver metastasis (P = 0.03). Presence of liver metastasis, but not other sites, was associated with significantly poorer PFS after adjustment for covariates (HR adj 2.82; 95%CI, 1.08-7.39; P adj =0.03). In a pooled analysis, liver metastasis remained significantly and independently associated with poorer PFS (HR adj 3.18; 95%CI, 1.52-6.67; P adj =0.002) and with attenuated tumor best response (P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Metastasis to the liver, but not other sites, was validated as an independent factor associated with poorer response and survival after ICI treatment in d-MMR mCRCs. These data underscore the need for novel therapeutic strategies in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JMH serves in an advisory role and has received research funding from Merck. FAS serves as an advisor to Roche Holdings AG. JT has received honoraria for speaker or advisory role from Astellas, Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Takeda and MSD. QS reports consulting/advisory role from Yiviva Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Kronos Bio, and Mirati Therapeutics Inc; Honorarium/speaker role from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (to QS), research funds from Celgene/BMS, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis (to institution). DT reports receiving consulting or advisory board fees from Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Amgen, MSD, BMS, Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre; receiving research funding from Pierre Fabre and Sandoz. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Combining immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma; however, whether this combination has activity in the perioperative setting remains unknown., Objective: To evaluate the safety and preliminary activity of perioperative chemotherapy and ICB followed by maintenance ICB in resectable G/GEJ adenocarcinoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, single-stage, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial screened 49 patients and enrolled 36 patients with resectable G/GEJ adenocarcinoma from February 10, 2017, to June 17, 2021, with a median (range) follow-up of 35.2 (17.4-73.0) months. Thirty-four patients were deemed evaluable for efficacy analysis, with 28 (82.4%) undergoing curative resection. This study was performed at 4 referral institutions in the US., Interventions: Patients received 3 cycles of capecitabine, 625 mg/m2, orally twice daily for 21 days; oxaliplatin, 130 mg/m2, intravenously and pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously with optional epirubicin, 50 mg/m2, every 3 weeks before and after surgery with an additional cycle of pembrolizumab before surgery. Patients received 14 additional doses of maintenance pembrolizumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Secondary end points included overall response rate, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: A total of 34 patients (median [range] age, 65.5 [25-90] years; 23 [67.6%] male) were evaluable for efficacy. Of these patients, 28 (82.4%) underwent curative resection, 7 (20.6%; 95% CI, 10.1%-100%) achieved pCR, and 6 (17.6%) achieved a pathologic near-complete response. Of the 28 patients who underwent resection, 4 (14.3%) experienced disease recurrence. The median DFS and OS were not reached. The 2-year DFS was 67.8% (95% CI, 0.53%-0.87%) and the OS was 80.6% (95% CI, 0.68%-0.96%). Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events for evaluable patients occurred in 20 patients (57.1%), and 12 (34.3%) experienced immune-related grade 3 or higher adverse events., Conclusion and Relevance: In this trial of unselected patients with resectable G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and pembrolizumab resulted in a pCR rate of 20.6% and was well tolerated. This trial met its primary end point and supports the development of checkpoint inhibition in combination with perioperative chemotherapy in locally advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02918162.

Background: Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) hepatitis, which does not improve with steroids and requires additional immunosuppressant, is defined as steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis. The outcome of patients with steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis remains poorly determined. Herein, we investigated the incidence, clinical features, and outcome of patients treated with second-line immunosuppressant for steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients who presented ICI hepatitis from 1st June 2016 to 30th September 2022. Steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis was defined as no clinical and biological improvement after systemic steroid therapy ≥1 mg/kg/d. Main objectives were to assess the frequency and risk factors associated with steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis and to evaluate the efficacy of second-line immunosuppressants., Results: In total, 130 patients with grade ≥3 ICI hepatitis were screened, of them 60 (46.2%) were treated with systemic steroids. In total, 11/130 (8.5%) had steroid-refractory hepatitis. Statistically significant factors associated with steroid-refractory hepatitis included previous liver comorbidities (54.5% versus 11.6%; p < 0.01), hyperbilirubinemia (p < 0.001), and general symptoms (fever, jaundice, ascites, and/or encephalopathy) associated with hepatitis (72.7% versus 30.8%; p = 0.015). The 11 patients with steroid-refractory hepatitis were treated with mycophenolate mofetil. In total, resolution or return to grade ≤1 for hepatitis was observed in 81.8% (9/11) of patients., Conclusions: Steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis accounted for 8.5% of patients with grade ≥3 immune-related hepatitis and was statistically associated with previous liver comorbidities, hyperbilirubinemia, and general symptoms. Mycophenolate mofetil was a suitable option of therapy for steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Jean-Marie Michot reports outside of the submitted work, research funding as Principal/sub-Investigator of Clinical Trials for Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca AB, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, Bicycle Tx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation, Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene SA, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor. Jean-Marie Michot reports research funding from BMS unrelated to the submitted work, honoraria from Gilead unrelated to the submitted work, honoraria from Ideogen unrelated to the submitted work. Capucine Baldini reports outside of the submitted work, research funding from BMS, honoraria from Sanofi, BMS, Astra Zeneca, and Abbvie. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are related to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

About 5% of the patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) present microsatellite instability (MSI)/deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR). While metastasectomy is known to improve overall and progression-free survival in mCRC, specific results in selected patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC are lacking. Our study aimed to describe metastasectomy results, characterize histological response and evaluate pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC. We retrospectively reviewed data from all consecutive patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC who underwent surgical metastasectomy between January 2010 and June 2021 in 17 French centers. Primary outcome was to assess the pCR rate defined by tumor regression grade (TRG) 0. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), and explored TRG as predictive factor for RFS and OS. Among the 88 patients operated, 109 metastasectomies were performed in 81 patients after neoadjuvant treatment [chemotherapy ± targeted therapy (CTT): 69, 85.2%; immunotherapy (ICI): 12, 14.8%], and pCR was achieved in 13 (16.1%) patients. Among the latter, pCR rate were 10.2% in the patients having received CTT (N = 7) and 50.0% in the patients treated with ICI (N = 6). Radiological response did not predict TRG. With a median follow-up of 57.9 (IQR 34.2-81.6) months, median RFS was 20.2 (15.4-not reached) months, median OS was not reached. Major pathological responses (TRG0 + TRG1) were significantly associated with longer RFS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.55; P = .006). The pCR rate of 16.1% achieved with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC is consistent with previously reported rates in pMMR/MSS mCRC. Immunotherapy showed better pCR rate than chemotherapy ± targeted therapy. Further prospective trials are needed to validate immunotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in resectable/potentially resectable dMMR/MSI mCRC and identify predictive factors for pCR., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: Phase I trials historically involved heavily pretreated patients (pts) with no more effective therapeutic options available and with poor expected outcomes. There are scare data regarding profile and outcomes of pts enrolled into modern phase I trials. Here, we sought to provide an overview of pts' profile and outcome into phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (GR)., Methods: This is a monocentric retrospective study, including all pts enrolled into phase I trials at GR from 2017 to 2021. Data regarding pts' demographics, tumour types, investigational treatments and survival outcomes were collected., Results: In total, 9482 pts were referred for early phase trials; 2478 pts were screened, among which 449 (18.1%) failed screening; 1693 pts finally received at least one treatment dose as part of a phase I trial. Median age of pts was 59 years old (range, 18-88) and most common tumour types included gastrointestinal (25.3%), haematological (15%), lung (13.6%), genitourinary (10.5%) and gynaecologic cancers (9.4%). Amongst all pts treated and evaluable for response (1634 pts), objective response rate was 15.9% and disease control rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3; 2.8) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.7; 13.6)., Conclusion: As compared with historical data, our study shows that outcomes of pts included into modern phase I trials have improved and that these trials constitute nowadays a valid and safe therapeutic option. These updated data provide facts for adapting the methodology, role and place of phase I trials over the next years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several studies reported improved outcomes with conventional treatments (CT, i.e., chemotherapy ± targeted therapy) administered after immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICI) in certain tumor types. No data are available concerning patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI). We aimed to assess the outcomes of dMMR/MSI mCRC pts receiving CT after ICI failure., Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study investigating the outcomes of all dMMR/MSI mCRC pts who received post-ICI CT between 2015 and 2020., Results: 31 pts (male 61%, median age 56 years) were included. ICI was an anti-PD(L)1 monotherapy in 71% of pts, and 61% received >2 lines before post-ICI CT. The overall response rate and disease control rate were 13% and 45%, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival of 2.9 and 7.4 months, respectively. No association of the outcomes with either ICI efficacy or anti-angiogenic agents was observed. Prolonged PFS (range 16.1-21.3 months) was observed in 4 pts (13%)., Conclusions: Although conducted on a limited number of patients, our results do not support an association of previous ICI treatment with an enhanced efficacy of CT in dMMR/MSI mCRC. However, prolonged disease control was observed in several cases, suggesting that some pts might derive an unexpected benefit from post-ICI treatments.

Pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of 10%. Currently, chemotherapy remains the standard of care for systemic treatment. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors unfortunately has not been found to be effective in the treatment of PDAC to date, likely due to the highly desmoplastic and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Treatment targeting pathways against the immunosuppressive mechanisms of PDAC are of mounting interest to improve outcomes in PDAC. In this review, we discuss prior efforts and the current state of immunotherapy in PDAC. We will also review the emerging targets and treatments with significant clinical potential for the treatment of PDAC such as: CD40 pathway, the adenosine pathway, the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis, the CCR2/CCL2 axis, IDO pathway, and others., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Conflicts of Interest for Dr. Manji: Roche/Genentech - Research Funding and Advisory Board. CEND Pharmaceuticals - Advisory Board. BioLineRx - Research Funding and Consultant. Regeneron - Research Funding. MERCK - Research Funding. Arcus Biosciences - Research Funding and Advisory Board., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Intra-operative radiotherapy for breast cancer has been developed throughout the last two decades. It is already well-established regarding local control and toxicity for intra-operative radiotherapy using electrons as we now have the necessary background knowledge. However, very few data on later toxicity are available for intra-operative radiotherapy using low-energy photons. We report here the case of a 36-year-old woman who experienced rib fracture following intra-operative and external radiotherapy. This patient has been included in the Targit-boost trial. The intra-operative irradiation has been operated with an INTRABEAM device delivering low-energy photons of 50-kV., (Copyright © 2020 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)