Search

Background: This study was undertaken to characterize the relation between the survival of patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pack-years of cigarette smoking (graded according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system).Methods: Data were analyzed from patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who had completed a prospective smoking questionnaire. The impact of pack-years of cigarette smoking, age, sex, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), and the presence of weight loss >5% was evaluated on overall survival using univariate and multivariate analyses.Results: Smoking history and clinical data were available for 2010 patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (1004 women and 1006 men). Approximately 70% of patients (1409 patients) had smoked >15 pack-years, 13% (270) were former and current smokers who had smoked < or = 15 pack-years, and 16% (331) were never-smokers (<100 lifetime cigarettes). Never-smokers had a longer median survival compared with former or current smokers (17.8 months vs 11.3 months; log-rank P < .001). Among smokers, patients with a < or = 15 pack-year history of smoking had a longer median survival than patients who had smoked >15 pack-years (14.6 months vs 10.8 months; log-rank P = .03). As the number of pack-years increased, the median overall survival decreased (log-rank P < .001). Multivariate analysis indicated that a history of smoking was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio, 1.36; P < .001).Conclusions: More cigarette smoking, measured in pack-years, was associated with decreased survival after a diagnosis of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Trials assessing survival in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC should report a detailed cigarette smoking history for all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation., Methods: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials., Results: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising., Conclusions: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. We report 3-year efficacy and safety results from the phase III CheckMate 649 trial. Patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥5. With 36.2-month minimum follow-up, for patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥5, the OS hazard ratio (HR) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.81); 21% versus 10% of patients were alive at 36 months, respectively; the PFS HR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.81); 36-month PFS rates were 13% versus 8%, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) per BICR was 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus 45% (95% CI, 40 to 50) with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.4) versus 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.9), respectively. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy also continued to show improvement in OS, PFS, and ORR versus chemotherapy in the overall population. Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy maintained clinically meaningful long-term survival benefit versus chemotherapy alone, with an acceptable safety profile, supporting the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors are the standard of care for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Although recommendations and approval by regulatory agencies are often based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pathologic assessments of PD-L1 status have several limitations. Single-site biopsies do not adequately capture disease heterogeneity within individual tumor lesions or among several lesions within the same patient, the PD-L1 combined positive score is a dynamic biomarker subject to evolution throughout a patient's disease course, and repeated biopsies are invasive and not always feasible. Methods: This was a prospective pilot study of the PD-L1-targeting radiotracer, 18 F-BMS-986229, with PET imaging (PD-L1 PET) in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Patients were administered the 18 F-BMS-986229 radiotracer intravenously at a dose of 370 MBq over 1-2 min and underwent whole-body PET/CT imaging 60 min later. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of 18 F-BMS-986229. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04161781). Results: Between February 3, 2020, and February 2, 2022, 10 patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma underwent PD-L1 PET. There were no adverse events associated with the 18 F-BMS-986229 tracer, and imaging did not result in treatment delays; the primary endpoint was achieved. Radiographic evaluation of PD-L1 expression was concordant with pathologic assessment in 88% of biopsied lesions, and 18 F-BMS-986229 uptake on PET imaging correlated with pathologic evaluation by the combined positive score (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.64). Seventy-one percent of patients with 18 F-BMS-986229 accumulation on PET imaging also had lesions without 18 F-BMS-986229 uptake, highlighting the intrapatient heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression. Patients treated with frontline programmed death 1 inhibitors who had 18 F-BMS-986229 accumulation in any lesions on PET imaging had longer progression-free survival than patients without tracer accumulation in any lesions (median progression-free survival, 28.4 vs. 9.9 mo), though the small sample size prevents any definitive conclusions. Conclusion: PD-L1 PET imaging was safe, feasible, and concordant with pathologic evaluation and offers a potential noninvasive tool to assess PD-L1 expression., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background: PET-CT-based patient metabolic profiling is a novel concept to incorporate patient-specific metabolism into gastric cancer care., Methods: Staging PET-CTs, demographics, and clinicopathologic variables of gastric cancer patients were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. PET-CT avidity was measured in tumor, liver, spleen, four paired muscles, and two paired fat areas in each patient. The liver to rectus femoris (LRF) ratio was defined as the ratio of SUV mean of liver to the average SUV mean of the bilateral rectus femoris muscles. Kaplan-Meier and Cox-proportional hazards models were used to identify the impact of LRF ratio on OS., Results: Two hundred and one patients with distal gastroesophageal (48%) or gastric (52%) adenocarcinoma were included. Median age was 65 years, and 146 (73%) were male. On univariate analysis, rectus femoris PET-CT avidity and LRF ratio were significantly associated with overall survival (p < 0.05). LRF ratio was significantly higher in males, early-stage cancer, patients with an ECOG 0 or 1 performance status, patients with albumin > 3.5 mg/dL, and those with moderately differentiated tumor histology. In multivariable regression, gastric cancer stage, albumin, and LRF ratio were significant independent predictors of overall survival (LRF ratio HR = 0.73 (0.56-0.96); p = 0.024). Survival curves showed that the prognostic impact of LRF was associated with metastatic gastric cancer (p = 0.009)., Conclusions: Elevated LRF ratio, a patient-specific PET-CT-based metabolic parameter, was independently associated with an improvement in OS in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. With prospective validation, LRF ratio may be a useful, host-specific metabolic parameter for prognostication in gastric cancer., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.)

Background: The rate of esophagogastric cancer is rising among individuals under 50 years of age. It remains unknown whether early-onset esophagogastric cancer represents a unique entity. This study investigated the clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer ., Methods: We reviewed the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction cancer database. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor and germline molecular alterations were compared between those with early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer using Fisher exact tests and the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple-hypothesis correction., Results: We included 1123 patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 219; median age = 43 years [range = 18-49 years]) and average-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 904; median age = 67 years [range = 50-94 years]) treated between 2005 and 2018. The early-onset group had more women (39% vs 28%, P = .002). Patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer were more likely to have a gastric primary site (64% vs 44%, P < .0001). The signet ring cell and/or diffuse type was 3 times more common in the early-onset esophagogastric cancer group (31% vs 9%, P < .0001). Early-onsite tumors were more frequently genomically stable (31% vs 18%, P = .0002) and unlikely to be microsatellite instability high (2% vs 7%, P = .003). After restricting to adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell and/or diffuse type carcinomas, we observed no difference in stage (P = .40) or overall survival from stage IV diagnosis (median = 22.7 vs 22.1 months, P = .78)., Conclusions: Our study supported a preponderance of gastric primary disease sites, signet ring histology, and genomically stable molecular subtypes in early-onset esophagogastric cancer. Our findings highlight the need for further research to define the underlying pathogenesis and strategies for early detection and prevention., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The benefit of combination neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibition in patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma is unknown. We assess the antitumor activity of neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma., Methods: The KEYNOTE-585 study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 143 medical centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with untreated, locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system to neoadjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously or placebo (saline) plus cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy (main cohort) every 3 weeks for 3 cycles, followed by surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy for 3 cycles, then adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo for 11 cycles. A small cohort was also randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab or placebo plus fluorouracil, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin (FLOT)-based chemotherapy (FLOT cohort) every 2 weeks for four cycles, followed by surgery, adjuvant pembrolizumab, or placebo plus FLOT for four cycles, then adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo for 11 cycles. Patients were stratified by geographic region, tumour stage, and chemotherapy backbone. Primary endpoints were pathological complete response (reviewed centrally), event-free survival (reviewed by the investigator), and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, and safety assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03221426, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Oct 9, 2017, and Jan 25, 2021, of 1254 patients screened, 804 were randomly assigned to the main cohort, of whom 402 were assigned to the pembrolizumab plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy group and 402 to the placebo plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy group, and 203 to the FLOT cohort, of whom 100 were assigned to the pembrolizumab plus FLOT group and 103 to placebo plus FLOT group. In the main cohort of 804 participants, 575 (72%) were male and 229 (28%) were female. In the main cohort, after median follow-up of 47·7 months (IQR 38·0-54·8), pembrolizumab was superior to placebo for pathological complete response (52 [12·9%; 95% CI 9·8-16·6] of 402 vs eight [2·0%; 0·9-3·9] of 402; difference 10·9%, 95% CI 7·5 to 14·8; p<0·00001). Median event-free survival was longer with pembrolizumab versus placebo (44·4 months, 95% CI 33·0 to not reached vs 25·3 months, 20·6 to 33·9; hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·67 to 0·99; p=0·0198) but did not meet the threshold for statistical significance (p=0·0178). Median overall survival was 60·7 months (95% CI 51·5 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab group versus 58·0 months (41·5 to not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·73 to 1·12; p=0·174). Grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause occurred in 312 (78%) of 399 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 297 (74%) of 400 patients in the placebo group; the most common were nausea (240 [60%] vs 247 [62%]), anaemia (168 [42%] vs 158 [40%]), and decreased appetite (163 [41%] vs 172 [43%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 102 (26%) and 97 (24%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in four (1%) patients in the pembrolizumab group (interstitial ischaemia, pneumonia, decreased appetite, and acute kidney injury [n=1 each]) and two (<1%) patients in the placebo group (neutropenic sepsis and neutropenic colitis [n=1 each])., Interpretation: Although neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo improved the pathological complete response, it did not translate to significant improvement in event-free survival in patients with untreated, locally advanced resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KS reports research funding to their institution from Astellas Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, and Eisai, consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Abbive, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astellas, Guardant Health Japan, and Janssen, and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen; SYR reports research funding to their institution from Amgen, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Merck, Roche, Zymework, Indivumed, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca, consultancy fees from Amgen, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, LG Biochem, Indivumed, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca, and fees for speaker bureau from Eli Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; LSW, PY, JX, SA, MO, HYab, Y-KP, TO, and NK report research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme; S-EA-B reports research funding to their institution from Celgene, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, German Cancer Aid, German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Roche, Vifor Pharma, Eurozyto, Immutep, Ipsen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and AstraZeneca, fees for speakers' bureau participation from Eli Lilly, AIO, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MCI Group, fees for consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly Germany, and stock ownership in Institut fir Klinische Grebsforschung and Immutep; TY reports honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, TREUMO, Otsuka, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, Olympus, and Intuitive; HYas reports research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and honoraria from Chugai Pharma; MDB reports research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Servier, reimbursement for travel from Daiichi, and participation on an advisory board for Novartis; SL reports research funding to their institution from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier, consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Incyte, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, and Astellas, and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Servier; JT reports consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspira, IQVIA, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, TheraMyc, and Tolremo Therapeutics, honoraria from HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Physicians Education Resource, and stock options in Oniria Therapeutics; EVC reports research funding to their institution from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Servier, and fees for advisory board consulting for Abbvie, ALX, Amgen, Array, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Daiichi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Takeda, Terumo, Taiho, and Zymeworks; YYJ reports research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme, the National Cancer Institute, the US Department of Defense, Cycle of Survival, Fred's Team, Rgenix, Bayer, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly, fees for advisory board participation from Rgenix, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, Astra Zeneca, and equity in Rgenix; XF, C-SS, and PB are employees of and own stock options in Merck Sharp & Dohme; D-YO reports research funding to their institution from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Array, Eli Lilly, Servier, Beigene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Handok; and Y-JB reports research funding to their institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and fees for consulting from Astellas, Amgen, Samyang Biopharm, Hanmi, and Daewoong., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In CheckMate 649, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced/metastatic non-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Methods: In patients (N = 1,581) concurrently randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy and in those with tumor PD-L1 expression at a combined positive score (CPS) of ≥5, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga), which included the FACT-General (FACT-G) and Gastric Cancer subscale (GaCS). The FACT-G GP5 item assessed treatment-related symptom burden. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures in the PRO analysis population (randomly assigned patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessments). Time to symptom or definitive deterioration analyses were also conducted., Results: In the PRO analysis population (n = 1,360), PRO questionnaire completion rates were mostly >80% during treatment. Patient-reported symptom burden was not increased with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Mean improved changes from baseline were greater with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for FACT-Ga total, GaCS, and EQ-5D visual analog scale in patients with a CPS of ≥5; results were similar for the overall PRO analysis population. In CPS ≥5 and all randomly assigned populations, nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk of symptom deterioration versus chemotherapy, on the basis of FACT-Ga total score and GaCS; time to definitive deterioration was longer, and the risk of definitive deterioration in HRQoL was reduced with nivolumab plus chemotherapy across EQ-5D and most FACT-Ga measures (hazard ratio [95% CI] <1)., Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy alone, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed stable or better on-treatment HRQoL in patients with advanced/metastatic non-HER2-positive GC/GEJC/EAC and also showed decreased risk of definitive HRQoL deterioration.

Background: Evidence for the efficacy of combined PD-1 and HER2 blockade with chemotherapy on progression-free and overall survival in HER2-positive gastro-oesophageal cancer is scarce. The first interim analysis of the randomised, phase 3 KEYNOTE-811 study showed a superior objective response with pembrolizumab compared with placebo when added to trastuzumab plus fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy. Here, we report results from protocol-specified subsequent interim analyses of KEYNOTE-811., Methods: The randomised, phase 3 KEYNOTE-811 trial involved 168 medical centres in 20 countries worldwide. Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, without previous first-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) by an integrated interactive voice-response and web-response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both to be combined with standard chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based therapy) plus trastuzumab every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or investigator or participant-initiated withdrawal. Randomisation used a block size of four and was stratified by region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy. Dual primary endpoints were progression-free and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment according to the treatment received. KEYNOTE-811 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03615326) and is active but not recruiting., Findings: Between Oct 5, 2018, and Aug 6, 2021, 698 patients were assigned to pembrolizumab (n=350) or placebo (n=348). 564 (81%) were male and 134 (19%) were female. At the third interim analysis, 286 (82%) of 350 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 304 (88%) of 346 in the placebo group who received treatment had discontinued treatment, mostly due to disease progression. At the second interim analysis (median follow-up 28·3 months [IQR 19·4-34·3] in the pembrolizumab group and 28·5 months [20·1-34·3] in the placebo group), median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·6-11·7) in the pembrolizumab group versus 8·1 months (7·0-8·5) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·60-0·87; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 20·0 months (17·8-23·2) versus 16·9 months (15·0-19·8; HR 0·87 [0·72-1·06]; p=0·084). At the third interim analysis (median follow-up 38·4 months [IQR 29·5-44·4] in the pembrolizumab group and 38·6 months [30·2-44·4] in the placebo group), median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (8·6-12·2) versus 8·1 months (7·1-8·6; HR 0·73 [0·61-0·87]), and median overall survival was 20·0 months (17·8-22·1) versus 16·8 months (15·0-18·7; HR 0·84 [0·70-1·01]), but did not meet prespecified criteria for significance and will continue to final analysis. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 204 (58%) of 350 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 176 (51%) of 346 patients in the placebo group. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in four (1%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group. The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were diarrhoea (165 [47%] in the pembrolizumab group vs 145 [42%] in the placebo group), nausea (154 [44%] vs 152 [44%]), and anaemia (109 [31%] vs 113 [33%])., Interpretation: Compared with placebo, pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival when combined with first-line trastuzumab and chemotherapy for metastatic HER2-positive gastro-oesophageal cancer, specifically in patients with tumours with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1 or more. Overall survival follow-up is ongoing and will be reported at the final analysis., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests YYJ reports research funding to their institution from MSD, the US National Cancer Institute, the US Department of Defense, Cycle of Survival, Fred's Team, Rgenix, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly; fees for advisory board participation from Inspira, Merck Serono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Imugene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi Sankyo, Zymeworks, SeaGen, Basilea Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; and equity in Inspira. AK reports research funding to their institution from AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, and MSD; consulting fees from Zymeworks, MSD, and Astellas Pharma; and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ono Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. YB, JX, PY, LSW, YO, MB, HCC, and S-KQ report research funding to their institutions from Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (MSD). SL reports research funding to their institution from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, and Astellas; and honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Servier. JPM reports grants from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Zymeworks, Astellas, Bayer, and Diachii; honoraria from MSD, Astellas, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and reimbursement for travel from MSD, Daichii, and BMS. LS reports research funding to their institution from MSD, Beijing Xiantong Biomedical Technology, Qiku Pharmaceutical Co, Zaiding Pharmaceutical (Shanghai) Co, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Co, Beihai Kangcheng (Beijing) Medical Technology Co, Boehringer Ingelheim, Harbour, and Merck; and consulting fees from Harbour and Merck. KS reports research funding to their institution from Astellas Pharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Amgen, and Eisai; consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Novatis, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, GSK, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Astellas, Guardant Health Japan, and Janssen; and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen. EVC reports research funding to their institution from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Rocher, and Servier; and fees for advisory board consulting for Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi, Halozyme, GSK, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, and Taiho. JT reports consulting fees from Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F Hoffman-La Roche, Genentech, HalioDx SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspira, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, TheraMyc, and Tolremo Therapeutics; honoraria from Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Physicians Education Resource; and stock options in Oniria Therapeutics. KL, C-SS, and PB are employees of and own stock options in MSD. SYR reports research funding to their institution from Amgen, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Merck, Roche, Zymework, Indivumed, MSD, Ono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; consultancy fees from Amgen, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, LG Biochem, Indivumed, MSD, Ono, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; and fees for speakers bureaus from Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Ono, and Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection., Materials and Methods: We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1 mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1 mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications., Results: Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11)., Conclusion: CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced oesophagogastric (oesophageal, gastric, or gastro-oesophageal junction) adenocarcinoma; however, outcomes remain poor. We assessed the safety and activity of regorafenib in combination with nivolumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma., Methods: This investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated, HER2-negative, metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma was done at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA). Eligible patients had measurable disease or non-measurable disease that was evaluable (defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST] version 1.1) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received FOLFOX chemotherapy (fluorouracil [400 mg/m 2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m 2 over 48 h], leucovorin [400 mg/m 2 ], and oxaliplatin [85 mg/m 2 ]) and nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously on days 1 and 15, and oral regorafenib (80 mg) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression (defined by RECIST version 1.1), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival in the per-protocol population (ie, all participants who received a dose of all study treatments). The regimen would be considered worthy of further investigation if at least 24 of 35 patients were progression free at 6 months. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04757363, and is now complete., Findings: Between Feb 11, 2021, and May 4, 2022, 39 patients were enrolled, received at least one dose of study drug, and were included in safety analyses. 35 patients were evaluable for 6-month progression-free survival. Median age was 57 years (IQR 52-66), nine (26%) patients were women, 26 (74%) were men, 28 (80%) were White, and seven (20%) were Asian. At data cutoff (March 3, 2023), median follow-up was 18·1 months (IQR 12·7-20·4). The primary endpoint was reached, with 25 (71%; 95% CI 54-85) of 35 patients progression free at 6 months. Nine (26%) of 35 patients had disease progression and one (3%) patient died; the death was unrelated to treatment. The most common adverse event of any grade was fatigue (36 [92%] of 39). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (18 [46%]), hypertension (six [15%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (five [13%]), and anaemia (four [10%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in ten (26%) patients, which were acute kidney injury (three [8%]), hepatotoxicity (two [5%]), sepsis (two [5%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (one [3%]), nausea (one [3%]), and gastric perforation (one [3%]). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Regorafenib can be safely combined with nivolumab and chemotherapy and showed promising activity in HER2-negative metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. A randomised, phase 3 clinical trial is planned., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer and National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SLC reports stock ownership in Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech. RHM reports consulting with PureTech Health, advisory board with IDEAYA Biosciences, and research funding from Nimbus Therapeutics. JFC reports an investigator role on a research study sponsored by Paige.AI. GYK reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pieris, and Zymeworks; and grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CARsgen, Zymeworks, Daiichi Sankyo, Oncolys, Pieris, and Adaptimmune. SBM reports honoraria from Natera, Bicara, Novartis, Basilea, Elevation Oncology, Purple Oncology, Pinetree Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo; research support from Epic Sciences; grant funding from the Conquer Cancer Foundation; and research travel support from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. MAS reports consulting for Boston Scientific and Novo Nordisk. MEL reports ownership or equity interests with Apricity Health; intellectual property rights with John Wiley & Sons, and the Taylor & Francis Group; uncompensated provision of services for Oncoderm; and provision of services for Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Apricity Health, AstraZeneca, Atlantic Canada Oncology Group, BGB Communications, Bicara Therapeutics, Deciphera, DelMar Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, GCO Global, Hoth Therapeutics, Incyte, Innovaderm Research, Johnson & Johnson, La Fonderie Ressources, La Roche-Posay, Loxo Oncology, Lutris Pharma, MJH Life Sciences, the Michigan Dermatological Society, NKMax America, NanOlogy, Novartis, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novocure, OnQuality Pharmaceuticals, Patient Resource, QED Therapeutics, RBC Consulting, RMEI Medical Education, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, Takeda Millennium, The Lynx Group, Tyra Biosciences, Varsona Pharmaceuticals, WebMD, Wolters Kluwer, and eSquared Communication Consulting. JS reports consulting for Paige.AI. MFB reports consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca (not related to this work). YYJ reports research funding from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Cycle for Survival, the United States Department of Defense, Eli Lilly, Fred's Team, Genentech/Roche, Merck, the National Cancer Institute, and RGENIX; advisory board or consulting with AbbVie, Amerisource Bergen, Ask-Gene Pharma, Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Geneos Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Imedex, Imugene, Lynx Health, Merck, Merck Serono, Mersana Therapeutics, Michael J Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, PeerView Institute, Pfizer, Research to Practice, RGENIX, Seagen, Silverback Therapeutics, and Zymeworks; and stock options in RGENIX. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic and localized mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors are exquisitely sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The ability of ICB to prevent dMMR malignant or pre-malignant neoplasia development in patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) is unknown. Of 172 cancer-affected patients with LS who had received ≥1 ICB cycles, 21 (12%) developed subsequent malignancies after ICB exposure, 91% (29/32) of which were dMMR, with median time to development of 21 months (interquartile range, 6-38). Twenty-four of 61 (39%) ICB-treated patients who subsequently underwent surveillance colonoscopy had premalignant polyps. Within matched pre-ICB and post-ICB follow-up periods, the overall rate of tumor development was unchanged; however, on subgroup analysis, a decreased incidence of post-ICB visceral tumors was observed. These data suggest that ICB treatment of LS-associated tumors does not eliminate risk of new neoplasia development, and LS-specific surveillance strategies should continue. These data have implications for immunopreventative strategies and provide insight into the immunobiology of dMMR tumors., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Purpose: We report updated clinical outcomes from a phase II study of pembrolizumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy (PTC) in metastatic esophagogastric cancer in conjunction with outcomes from an independent Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) cohort., Patients and Methods: The significance of pretreatment 89Zr-trastuzumab PET, plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics, and tumor HER2 expression and whole exome sequencing was evaluated to identify prognostic biomarkers and mechanisms of resistance in patients treated on-protocol with PTC. Additional prognostic features were evaluated using a multivariable Cox regression model of trastuzumab-treated MSK patients (n = 226). Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data from MSK and Samsung were evaluated for mechanisms of therapy resistance., Results: 89Zr-trastuzumab PET, scRNA-seq, and serial ctDNA with CT imaging identified how pre-treatment intrapatient genomic heterogeneity contributes to inferior progression-free survival (PFS). We demonstrated that the presence of intensely avid lesions by 89Zr-trastuzumab PET declines in tumor-matched ctDNA by 3 weeks, and clearance of tumor-matched ctDNA by 9 weeks were minimally invasive biomarkers of durable PFS. Paired pre- and on-treatment scRNA-seq identified rapid clearance of HER2-expressing tumor clones with expansion of clones expressing a transcriptional resistance program, which was associated with MT1H, MT1E, MT2A, and MSMB expression. Among trastuzumab-treated patients at MSK, ERBB2 amplification was associated with improved PFS, while alterations in MYC and CDKN2A/B were associated with inferior PFS., Conclusions: These findings highlight the clinical relevance of identifying baseline intrapatient heterogeneity and serial ctDNA monitoring of HER2-positive esophagogastric cancer patients to identify early evidence of treatment resistance, which could guide proactive therapy escalation or deescalation., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of adding the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and preoperative chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma., Background: Neoadjuvant induction FOLFOX followed by positron emission tomography (PET) directed chemoradiation has demonstrated improved survival for esophageal adenocarcinoma. There is clear benefit now for the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors both in early and advanced stage disease. Given these results we investigated the safety and efficacy of adding durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy., Methods: Patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma received PET-directed chemoradiation with durvalumab before esophagectomy. Patients who had R0 resections received adjuvant durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for 6 treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was pathologic complete response., Results: We enrolled 36 patients, 33 of whom completed all preoperative treatment and underwent surgery. Preoperative treatment was well tolerated, with no delays to surgery nor new safety signals. Pathologic complete response was identified in 8 [22% (1-sided 90% lower bound: 13.3%)] patients with major pathologic response in 22 [61% (1-sided 90% lower bound: 50%)] patients. Twelve and 24-month overall survival was 92% and 85%, respectively., Conclusions: The addition of durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and PET-directed chemoradiotherapy before surgery is safe, with a high rate of pathologic response, as well as encouraging survival data., Competing Interests: G.Y.K. reports grant and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. AJC. A.J.-C.W. reports grant fees from CivaTech Oncology and personal fees from Nanovi A/S and Simphotek Inc. D.R.J. reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Merck. S.B.M. reports personal fees from Natera, Bicara, Novartis, Basilea and Daiichi-Sankyo. P.S.A. reports grant and personal fees from ATARA Biotherapeutics, and personal fees from Bayer, Carisma Therapeutics, Imugene, ImmPactBio, Johnson & Johnson, and OutpaceBio. D.H.I. reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho, Merck, Macrogenics, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas and Adaptimmune. Y.Y.J. reports research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival, Department of Defense, Eli Lilly, Fred’s Team, Genentech/Roche, Merck, NCI, RGENIX and personal fees from Amerisource Bergen, Arcus Biosciences, Astra Zeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Geneos Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Imedex, Imugene, Lynx Health, Merck, Merck Serono, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, PeerView Institute, Pfizer, Research to Practice, RGENIX, Seagen, Silverback Therapeutics, Zymeworks Inc. D.M. reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Perioperative chemotherapy is standard of care management for locally advanced gastric cancer (GC), but a substantial proportion of patients do not complete adjuvant therapy due to postoperative complications and prolonged recovery. Administration of all chemotherapy prior to surgery in the form of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) may optimize complete delivery of systemic therapy., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of GC patients who had surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) from May 2014 to June 2020., Results: One hundred and forty-nine patients were identified; 121 patients received perioperative chemotherapy and 28 patients received TNT. TNT was chosen if patients had interim radiographic and/or clinical response to treatment. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two group except for chemotherapy regimen; more TNT patients received FLOT compared to the perioperative group (79% vs. 31%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who completed all planned cycles, but TNT patients received a higher proportion of cycles containing all chemotherapy drugs (93% vs. 74%, P<0.001). Twenty-nine patients (24%) in the perioperative group did not receive intended adjuvant therapy. There was no significant difference in hospital length of stay or surgical morbidity. The overall distribution of pathologic stage was similar between the two groups. Fourteen percent of TNT patients and 5.8% of perioperative patients achieved a pathologic complete response (P=0.6). There was no significant difference in recurrence free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) between the TNT and perioperative groups [24-month OS rate 77% vs. 85%, HR 1.69 (95% CI: 0.80-3.56)]., Conclusions: Our study was limited by a small TNT sample size and biases inherent to a retrospective analysis. TNT appears to be feasible in a select population, without any increase in surgical morbidity., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-23-4/coif). VS reported receiving speaking honoraria from Merck. SBM reported receiving honoraria from Natera, Bicara, Novartis, Basilea, Elevation Oncology, and Daiichi Sankyo, research-associated travel from AstraZeneca, grant support from the Conquer Cancer Foundation outside the submitted work, and owning stock in Calithera. DHI reported receiving consulting fees from Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Roche, Taiho, Macrogenics, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly. YYJ reported receiving research funding from the National Cancer Institute, the US Department of Defense, Cycle for Survival, Fred’s Team, RGENIX, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Merck, consulting fees from Amerisource, Ask-Gene Pharma, Arcus Biosciences, Basilea, Geneos, GlaxoSmithKline, Imedex, Lynx Health, Mersana, Michael J. Hennessy, Paradigm Medical, PeerView, Phanes, RGENIX, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Imugene, Zymeworks, Seagen, Silverback, and AstraZeneca, and having stock options in RGENIX outside the submitted work. GYK reported receiving grants from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, BMS, CARsgen, Eli Lilly, I-Mab, Merck, Oncolys, Pieris, Zymeworks, and Daiichi Sankyo, and receiving consulting fees from/served on Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, BMS, I-Mab, Merck, and Pieris. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess postoperative morbidity, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients treated with salvage esophagectomy (SE)., Background Data: A shift toward a "surgery as needed" approach for esophageal cancer has emerged, potentially resulting in delayed esophagectomy., Methods: We identified patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma who underwent chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy from 2001 to 2019. SE was defined as esophagectomy performed >90 days after chemoradiation ("for time") and esophagectomy performed for recurrence after curative-intent chemoradiation ("for recurrence"). The odds of postoperative serious complications were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. The relationship between SE and OS and DFS were quantified using Cox regression models., Results: Of 1137 patients identified, 173 (15%) underwent SE. Of those, 61 (35%) underwent SE for recurrence, and 112 (65%) underwent SE for time. The odds of experiencing any serious complication [odds ratio, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.37-3.20); P =0.001] or serious pulmonary complication [odds ratio, 2.11 (95% CI, 1.31-3.42); P =0.002] were 2-fold higher for SE patients; SE patients had a 1.5-fold higher hazard of death [hazard ratio, 1.56 (95% CI, 1.25-1.94); P <0.0001] and postoperative recurrence [hazard ratio, 1.43 (95% CI, 1.16-1.77); P =0.001]. Five-year OS for nonsalvage esophagectomy was 45% [(95% CI, 41.6%-48.6%) versus 26.5% (95% CI, 20.2%-34.8%) for SE (log-rank P <0.001)]. Five-year OS for SE for time was 27.1% [(95% CI, 19.5%-37.5%) versus 25.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-41.5%) for SE for recurrence ( P =0.611)]., Conclusions: SE is associated with a higher risk of serious postoperative complications and shorter DFS and OS., Competing Interests: M.J.B. is a consultant for AstraZeneca. D.H.I. reports research funding to Memorial Sloan Kettering from Astellas, Eli Lilly, Pieris, and Taiho and consulting for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Roche. J.M.I. has stock ownership in LumaCyte and is a consultant/advisory board member for Roche Genentech. B.J.P. has served as a proctor for Intuitive Surgical and as a consultant for COTA. Y.Y.J. reports grant funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival, US Department of Defense, Eli Lilly, Fred’s Team, Genentech/Roche, Merck, US National Cancer Institute, and RGENIX; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Imugene, Merck, Merck Serono, Michael J Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, Pfizer, RGENIX, Seagen, and Zymeworks; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Imugene, Merck, Merck Serono, Michael J Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, Pfizer, RGENIX, Seagen, and Zymeworks; and stock or stock options for RGENIX. G.R. has a financial relationship with Scanlan, AstraZeneca, and Medtronic. V.W.R. reports grant support (institutional) from Genelux and Genentech, travel support from Intuitive Surgical, and travel support and payments from NIH/Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials. A.J.W. reports stock and other ownership interests in Simphotek, consulting or advisory roles for AstraZeneca, MORE Health, and NanoVi, research funding from CivaTech Oncology, and travel, accommodations, and expenses from CivaTech Oncology. D.R.J. serves as a consultant for AstraZeneca and on a Clinical Trial Steering Committee for Merck. D.M. serves on a steering committee for AstraZeneca and as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Genentech. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high gastric cancer., Background: Although MSI-high gastric cancer is associated with a superior prognosis, recent studies question the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in this population., Methods: Locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients who either underwent surgery alone or also received neoadjuvant, perioperative, or adjuvant chemotherapy between 2000 and 2018 were eligible. MSI status, determined by next-generation sequencing or mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry, was determined in 535 patients. Associations among MSI status, chemotherapy administration, overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival were assessed., Results: In 535 patients, 82 (15.3%) had an MSI-high tumor and ∼20% better OS, disease-specific survival, and disease-free survival. Grade 1 (90%-100%) pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was found in 0 of 40 (0%) MSI-high tumors versus 43 of 274 (16%) MSS. In the MSI-high group, the 3-year OS rate was 79% with chemotherapy versus 88% with surgery alone ( P =0.48). In the MSS group, this was 61% versus 59%, respectively ( P =0.96). After multivariable interaction analyses, patients with MSI-high tumors had superior survival compared with patients with MSS tumors whether given chemotherapy (hazard ratio=0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.99) or treated with surgery alone (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.17)., Conclusions: MSI-high locally advanced gastric cancer was associated with superior survival compared with MSS overall, despite worse pathological chemotherapy response. In patients with MSI-high gastric cancer who received chemotherapy, the survival rate was ∼9% worse compared with surgery alone, but chemotherapy was not significantly associated with survival., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Variations in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression between the primary tumor and metastases may contribute to drug resistance in HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic esophagogastric cancer (mEGC). 89 Zr-trastuzumab PET (HER2 PET) holds promise for noninvasive assessment of variations in HER2 expression and target engagement. The aim of this study was to describe HER2 PET findings in patients with mEGC. Methods: Patients with HER2+ mEGC were imaged with HER2 PET, 18 F-FDG PET, and CT. Lesions were annotated using measurements (on CT) and maximum SUVs (on HER2 PET). Correlation of visualized disease burden among imaging modalities with clinical and pathologic characteristics was performed. Results: Thirty-three patients with HER2+ mEGC were imaged with HER2 PET and CT (12% esophageal, 64% gastroesophageal junction, and 24% gastric adenocarcinoma), 26 of whom were also imaged with 18 F-FDG PET. More lesions were identified on 18 F-FDG PET (median, 7 [range, 1-14]) than HER2 PET (median, 4 [range, 0-11]). Of the 8 lesions identified on HER2 but not on 18 F-FDG PET, 3 (38%) were in bone and 1 was in the brain. Of the 68 lesions identified on 18 F-FDG but not on HER2 PET, 4 (6%) were in bone and the remainder were in the lymph nodes (35, 51%) and liver (16, 24%). Of the 33 total patients, 23 (70%) were HER2 imaging-positive (≥50% of tumor load positive). Only 10 patients had 100% of the tumor load positive; 2 had 0% positive. When only patients receiving HER2-directed therapy as first-line treatment were considered ( n  = 13), median progression-free survival (PFS) therapy was not significantly different between HER2 imaging-positive and -negative patients. Median PFS for patients with at least 1 intense or very intense lesion (SUV ≥ 10) was 16 (95% CI: 11-not reached) mo ( n  = 7), compared with 12 (95% CI: 6.3-not reached) mo for patients without an intense or very intense lesion ( n  = 6) ( P  = 0.35). Conclusion: HER2 PET may identify heterogeneity of HER2 expression and allow assessment of lesions throughout the entire body. A potential application of HER2 PET is noninvasive evaluation of HER2 status including assessment of intrapatient disease heterogeneity not captured by standard imaging or single-site biopsies., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Purpose: This study assessed the trial-level association between event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant ± adjuvant settings., Experimental Design: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated neoadjuvant therapies with or without adjuvant therapies for gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. A meta-analysis was performed using weighted linear regressions of the treatment effect of OS on the treatment effect of EFS. The coefficient of determination (R²) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the association between treatment effects of EFS and OS. The threshold used for defining good trial-level surrogacy was a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.8 or R² of 0.65, based on prior literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the association with divergent study designs, including study population, inclusion of adjuvant therapy, and definitions of EFS and OS., Results: The main analysis included 16 comparisons from 15 RCTs. The log(HR) of EFS was a significant predictor of log(HR) of OS, with an estimated coefficient of 0.72 (P < 0.001) and R² = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95), indicating that EFS was a good surrogate outcome for OS. The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results, with R² ranging from 0.76 to 0.89., Conclusions: This study suggests that EFS is a good surrogate for OS in gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant ± adjuvant setting., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

HER2 is overexpressed in approximately 20% of esophagogastric cancer (EGC) cases. The addition of the anti-HER2 antibody, trastuzumab, to chemotherapy in 2010 was the first targeted treatment to demonstrate an improvement in survival. The aggressive nature and heterogeneous biology of EGC have posed a particular challenge and resulted in numerous negative trials without a change in standard of care for more than a decade. However, with the incorporation of dual HER2 and PD-1 blockade as well as the advent of a new, potent antibody-drug conjugate, trastuzumab deruxtecan, there have been 2 new FDA approvals for this patient population within the past 2 years. Consequently, the management and landscape of HER2-positive EGC is rapidly changing and increasingly optimistic.

Objective: We sought to compare gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and gastric cancer (GC) and identify clinicopathological and oncological differences., Summary Background Data: GEJ cancer and GC are frequently studied together. Although the treatment approach for each often differs, clinico-pathological and oncological differences between the 2 have not been fully evaluated., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with GEJ cancer or GC who underwent R0 resection at our center between January 2000 and December 2016. Clinicopathological characteristics, disease-specific survival (DSS), and site of first recurrence were compared., Results: In total, 2194 patients were analyzed: 1060 (48.3%) with GEJ cancer and 1134 (51.7%) with GC. Patients with GEJ cancer were younger (64 vs 66 years; P < 0.001), more often received neoadjuvant treatment (70.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001), and had lower pathological T and N status. Five-year DSS was 62.2% in patients with GEJ cancer and 74.6% in patients with GC ( P < 0.001). After adjustment for clinicopathological factors, DSS remained worse in patients with GEJ cancer (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.26; P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of recurrence was approximately 10% higher in patients with GEJ cancer ( P < 0.001). The site of first recurrence was more likely to be hematogenous in patients with GEJ cancer (60.1% vs 31.4%; P < 0.001) and peritoneal in patients with GC (52.9% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: GEJ adenocarcinoma is more aggressive, with a higher incidence of recurrence and worse DSS, compared with gastric adenocarcinoma. Distinct differences between GEJ cancer and GC, especially in patterns of recurrence, may affect evaluation of optimal treatment strategies., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT, induction CP followed by PET-directed nCRT, and nCRT with CP alone in patients with EAC., Summary of Background Data: nCRT with CP is a standard treatment for locally advanced EAC. The results of cancer and leukemia group B 80803 support the use of induction chemotherapy followed by PET-directed chemo-radiation therapy., Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients with EAC who underwent the treatments above followed by esophagectomy. We assessed incidences of pathologic complete response (pCR), near-pCR (ypN0 with ≥90% response), and surgical complications between treatment groups using Fisher exact test and logistic regression; disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated using the log-rank test and extended Cox regression., Results: In total, 451 patients were included: 309 (69%) received induction chemotherapy before nCRT (FOLFOX, n = 70; CP, n = 239); 142 (31%) received nCRT with CP. Rates of pCR (33% vs. 16%, P = 0.004), near-pCR (57% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 50%, P = 0.01) were higher in the induction FOLFOX group than in the induction CP group. Similarly, the rate of near-pCR (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.04) and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 44%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the FOLFOX group than in the no-induction group., Conclusions: Induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT may result in better histopathologic response rates and DFS than either induction CP plus PET-directed nCRT or nCRT with CP alone., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) has been associated with development of atherosclerosis and leukemia and worse survival among patients with cancer; however, the association with cancer therapy efficacy, in particular immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), and toxicity has not yet been established. Given the widespread use of ICB and the critical role hematopoietic stem cell-derived lymphocytes play in mediating antitumor responses, CH may be associated with therapeutic efficacy and hematologic toxicity., Objective: To determine the association between CH and outcomes, hematologic toxicity, and therapeutic efficacy in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal tract cancers being treated with systemic therapy, both in the first-line metastatic treatment setting and in ICB., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 633 patients with stage IV colorectal (CRC) and esophagogastric (EGC) cancer who were treated with first-line chemotherapy and/or ICB at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Patients underwent matched tumor and peripheral blood DNA sequencing using the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets next-generation sequencing assay between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2020., Exposures: Clonal hematopoiesis-related genetic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing of patients' tumor and normal blood buffy coat samples, with a subset of these CH alterations annotated as likely putative drivers (CH-PD) based upon previously established criteria., Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients with CH and CH-PD in peripheral blood samples were identified, and these findings were correlated with survival outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall survival [OS]) during first-line chemotherapy and ICB, as well as baseline white blood cell levels and the need for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support., Results: Among the 633 patients included in the study (390 men [61.6%]; median age, 58 [IQR, 48-66] years), the median age was 52 (IQR, 45-63) years in the CRC group and 61 (IQR, 53-69) years in the EGC group. In the CRC group, 161 of 301 patients (53.5%) were men, compared with 229 of 332 patients (69.0%) in the EGC group. Overall, 62 patients (9.8%) were Asian, 45 (7.1%) were Black or African American, 482 (76.1%) were White, and 44 (7.0%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Presence of CH was identified in 115 patients with EGC (34.6%) and 83 with CRC (27.6%), with approximately half of these patients harboring CH-PD (CRC group, 44 of 83 [53.0%]; EGC group, 55 of 115 [47.8%]). Patients with EGC and CH-PD exhibited a significantly worse median OS of 16.0 (95% CI, 11.6-22.3) months compared with 21.6 (95% CI, 19.6-24.3) months for those without CH-PD (P = .01). For patients with CRC and EGC, CH and CH-PD were not associated with PFS differences in patients undergoing ICB or first-line chemotherapy. Neither CH nor CH-PD were correlated with baseline leukocyte levels or increased need for G-CSF support., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest CH and CH-PD are not directly associated with the treatment course of patients with metastatic gastrointestinal tract cancer receiving cancer-directed therapy.

Objective: To evaluate whether pCR exclusively defines major pathologic response to treatment with improved survival., Summary Background Data: pCR after trimodality therapy for EAC is infrequent but associated with improved prognosis. Yet most clinical trials and correlative studies designate pCR as the primary endpoint., Methods: We analyzed our prospectively maintained database for patients who underwent trimodality therapy for locally advanced esophageal adeno-carcinoma between 1995 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) was examined by percentage TR in the primary tumor bed and pathologic nodal stage (ypN0) using Kaplan-Meier plots. Optimal thresholds of TR for differentiating patients in terms of OS were investigated with descriptive plots using restricted cubic spline functions; associations were quantified using Cox multivariable analysis., Results: Among 788 patients, median follow-up was 37.5 months (range, 0.4210.6); median OS was 48.3 months (95% CI, 42.2-58.8). Absence of residual nodal disease was independently associated with improved survival ( P < 0.001). Survival curves for 90% to 99% TR and 100% TR were similar, and a change in probability of improved OS was observed at 90% TR. On multivariable analysis, combining 90% to 99% and 100% TR was independently associated with improved OS, compared with 50% to 89% and <50% TR., Conclusions: ypN0 status is the strongest indicator of major pathologic response to trimodality therapy, in addition to >90% TR in the primary tumor bed. These findings may allow the definition of major pathologic response to be expanded, from pCR to > 90% TR and ypN0. This has meaningful implications for future clinical trials and correlative studies., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The association between loss of BRCA1/2 and a homologous recombination deficiency phenotype is lineage dependent. In BRCA-associated cancers such as breast, ovarian, pancreas and prostate, this phenotype confers sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and platinum-therapies. Somatic reversion mutations restoring BRCA1/2 function mediate resistance, and have exclusively been reported in BRCA-associated tumors. In this study, we analyze matched tumor and normal sequencing from 31,927 patients and identify 846 (2.7%) patients with germline BRCA1/2 variants across 43 different cancer types, including 11 with somatic reversion mutations. While nine are in BRCA-associated tumors, we find two reversion mutations in non-BRCA-associated histologies, namely lung and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. Both were detected following platinum therapy. Whole exome sequencing confirms the homologous recombination deficiency phenotype of these tumors. While reversion mutations arise in all BRCA-associated cancer types, here we show that reversion mutations arising post-platinum in non-BRCA associated histologies, while rare, may indicate BRCA1/2 mediated tumorigenesis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Advanced esophageal cancer has one of the lowest 5-year survival rates. Historically, treatment options have been limited to cytotoxic chemotherapy but recent trials have established a key role for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Chemotherapy plus nivolumab or pembrolizumab now represents the new standard of care frontline regimen for both esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Advances in targeting HER2 and other molecular targets have also expanded our therapeutic landscape. This article aims to provide an overview of recent advances in immunotherapy and targeted therapy for esophageal cancer as well as summarize ongoing clinical trials and future directions., Competing Interests: Disclosure J. Yang: No relevant disclosures. J.Y. Yelena: Reports receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival, Department of Defense, Fred’s Team, Genentech/Roche Lilly, Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, and Rgenix; serving as a consultant or in an advisory role for Basilea Pharmaceutical, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Imugene, Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Michael J Hennessy Associates, Paradigm Medical Communications, Pfizer, Rgenix, Seagen, and Zymeworks; receiving stock options from Rgenix; and nonfinancial relationships with Clinical Care Options, Axis Medical Education, and Research to Practice., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The microbiome is hypothesized to have a significant impact on cancer development. In gastric cancer (GC), Helicobacter pylori is an established class I carcinogen. However, additional organisms in the intratumoral microbiome play an important role in GC pathogenesis and progression. In this study, we characterize the full spectrum of the microbes present within GC and identify distinctions among molecular subtypes., Methods: A microbiome bioinformatics pipeline that is generalizable across multiple next-generation sequencing platforms was developed. Microbial profiles for alpha diversity and enrichment were generated for 2 large, demographically distinct cohorts: (1) internal Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and (2) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohorts. A total of 520 GC samples were compared with select tumor-adjacent nonmalignant samples. Microbiome differences among the GC molecular subtypes were identified., Results: Compared with nonmalignant samples, GC had significantly decreased microbial diversity in both MSKCC and TCGA cohorts ( P <0.05). Helicobacter , Lactobacillus , Streptococcus , Prevotella , and Bacteroides were significantly more enriched in GC samples when compared with nonmalignant tissue ( P <0.05). Microsatellite instability-high GC had distinct microbial enrichment compared with other GC molecular subtypes., Conclusion: Distinct patterns of microbial diversity and species enrichment were identified in patients with GC. Given the varied spectrum of disease progression and treatment response of GC, understanding unique microbial signatures will provide the landscape to explore key microbial targets for therapy., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) nomogram combined both gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and gastric cancer patients and was created in an era from patients who generally did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We sought to reevaluate the MSK nomogram in the era of multidisciplinary treatment for GEJ and gastric cancer., Study Design: Using data on patients who underwent R0 resection for GEJ or gastric cancer between 2002 and 2016, the C-index of prediction for disease-specific survival (DSS) was compared between the MSK nomogram and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging system after segregating patients by tumor location (GEJ or gastric cancer) and neoadjuvant treatment. A new nomogram was created for the group for which both systems poorly predicted prognosis., Results: During the study period, 886 patients (645 gastric and 241 GEJ cancer) underwent up-front surgery, and 999 patients (323 gastric and 676 GEJ) received neoadjuvant treatment. Compared with the AJCC staging system, the MSK nomogram demonstrated a comparable C-index in gastric cancer patients undergoing up-front surgery (0.786 vs 0.753) and a better C-index in gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment (0.796 vs 0.698). In GEJ cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neither the MSK nomogram nor the AJCC staging system performed well (C-indices 0.647 and 0.646). A new GEJ nomogram was created based on multivariable Cox regression analysis and was validated with a C-index of 0.718., Conclusions: The MSK gastric cancer nomogram's predictive accuracy remains high. We developed a new GEJ nomogram that can effectively predict DSS in patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Brain metastasis (BrM) in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a rare and poorly understood phenomenon associated with poor prognosis., Objectives: To examine the clinical and genomic features of patients with BrM from GEA and evaluate factors associated with survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, 68 patients with BrM from GEA diagnosed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2020, were identified via review of billing codes and imaging reports from the electronic medical record with follow-up through November 3, 2021. Genomic data were derived from the Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets clinical sequencing platform., Exposures: Treatment with BrM resection and/or radiotherapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival after BrM diagnosis., Results: Sixty-eight patients (median age at diagnosis, 57.4 years [IQR, 49.8-66.4 years]; 59 [86.8%] male; 55 [85.9%] White) participated in the study. A total of 57 (83.8%) had primary tumors in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Median time from initial diagnosis to BrM diagnosis was 16.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.7 months). Median survival from BrM diagnosis was 8.7 months (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 months). Overall survival was 35% (95% CI, 25%-48%) at 1 year and 24% (95% CI, 16%-37%) at 2 years. In a multivariable analysis, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or greater (hazard ratio [HR], 4.66; 95% CI, 1.47-14.70; P = .009) and lack of surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention (HR, 7.71; 95% CI, 2.01-29.60; P = .003) were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, whereas 3 or more extracranial sites of disease (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.64-5.29; P = .25) and 4 or more BrMs (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 0.93-4.98; P = .07) were not statistically significant. A total of 31 patients (45.6%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-positive tumors, and alterations in ERBB2 were enriched in BrM relative to primary tumors (8 [47.1%] vs 7 [20.6%], P = .05), as were alterations in PTPRT (7 [41.2%] vs 4 [11.8%], P = .03)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that that a notable proportion of patients with BrM from GEA achieve survival exceeding 1 and 2 years from BrM diagnosis, a more favorable prognosis than previously reported. Good performance status and treatment with combination surgery and radiotherapy were associated with the best outcomes. ERBB2 positivity and amplification as well as PTPRT alterations were enriched in BrM tissue compared with primary tumors; therefore, further study should be pursued to identify whether these variables represent genomic risk factors for BrM development.

Objective: We sought to determine the extent of lymphadenectomy that optimizes staging and survival in patients with locally advanced EAC treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy., Summary of Background Data: Several studies have found that a more extensive lymphadenectomy leads to better disease-specific survival in patients treated with surgery alone. Few studies, however, have investigated whether this association exists for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy., Methods: We examined our prospective database and identified patients with EAC treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 1995 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and DFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of OS and DFS. The relationship between the total number of nodes removed and 5-year OS or DFS was plotted using restricted cubic spline functions., Results: In total, 778 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median number of excised nodes was 21 (interquartile range, 16-27). A lower number of excised lymph nodes was independently associated with worse OS and DFS (OS: hazard ratio, 0.98; confidence interval, 0.97-1.00; P = 0.013; DFS: hazard ratio, 0.99; confidence interval, 0.98-1.00; P = 0.028). Removing 25 to 30 lymph nodes was associated with a 10% risk of missing a positive lymph node. Both OS and DFS improved with up to 20 to 25 lymph nodes removed, regardless of treatment response., Conclusions: The optimal extent of lymphadenectomy to enhance both staging and survival after chemoradiotherapy, regardless of treatment response, is approximately 25 lymph nodes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Subset analyses from phase III evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition (EGFRi) suggest improved outcomes in patients with EGFR- amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA), but large-scale analyses are lacking. This multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the role of EGFRi in the largest cohort of patients with EGFR- amplified GEA to date., Patients and Methods: A total of 60 patients from 15 tertiary cancer centers in six countries met the inclusion criteria. These criteria required histologically confirmed GEA in the metastatic or unresectable setting with EGFR amplification identified by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved assay, and who received on- or off-protocol EGFRi. Testing could be by tissue next-generation sequencing, plasma circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing, and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments approved laboratory. Treatment patterns and outcomes analysis was also performed using a deidentified clinicogenomic database (CGDB)., Results: Sixty patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi, including 31 of 60 patients (52%) with concurrent chemotherapy. Across treatment lines, patients achieved a 43% objective response rate with a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4). Patients receiving EGFRi in first-, second-, and third-line therapy achieved a median overall survival of 20.6 months (95% CI, 13.5 to not reached [NR]), 9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to NR), and 8.4 months (7.6 to NR), respectively. This survival far exceeded the 11.2-month (95% CI, 8.7 to 14.2) median overall survival from first-line initiation of non-EGFRi therapy in patients with EGFR -amplified GEA in the CGDB. Despite this benefit, analysis of the CGDB (January 2011-December 2020) suggests that only 5% of patients with EGFR -amplified GEA received EGFRi., Conclusion: Patients with EGFR- amplified GEA derive significant benefit from EGFRi. Further prospective investigation of EGFRi in a well-selected patient population is ongoing in an upcoming trial of amivantamab in EGFR and/or MET amplified GEA.

Purpose: In patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma, response to neoadjuvant therapy strongly predicts survival, but robust molecular predictors of response have been lacking. We therefore sought to discover meaningful predictors of response in these patients., Experimental Design: We retrospectively identified all patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who (i) were treated with multimodality therapy with curative intent at our institution from 2014 through 2020 and (ii) underwent prospective sequencing by Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets. Clinicopathologic and genomic data were analyzed to identify potential genomic features, somatic alterations, and oncogenic pathways associated with treatment response., Results: In total, 237 patients were included. MDM2 amplification was independently associated with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy [OR, 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.55); P = 0.032], when accounting for significant clinicopathologic variables, including clinical stage, tumor grade, and chemotherapy regimen. Moreover, TP53 pathway alterations, grouped according to inferred severity of TP53 dysfunction, were significantly associated with response to neoadjuvant therapy (P = 0.004, q = 0.07). Patients with MDM2 amplifications or truncating biallelic TP53 mutations had similar outcomes in terms of poor responses to neoadjuvant therapy and, consequently, shorter progression-free survival, compared with patients with TP53 pathway wild-type tumors. Thus, worsening TP53 dysfunction was directly correlated with worse outcomes., Conclusions: MDM2 amplification and TP53 status are associated with response to therapy in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Given the dearth of actionable targets in esophageal adenocarcinoma, MDM2 inhibition, in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy, may represent an important therapeutic strategy to overcome treatment resistance and improve outcomes in these patients., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Standard-of-care for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer includes surgery and neoadjuvant-adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin-docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy. Early-phase clinical studies support further clinical development of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI); durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Accumulating evidence indicates that ICIs combined with FLOT chemotherapy improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. We describe the rationale for and the design of MATTERHORN, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study investigating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant-adjuvant durvalumab and FLOT chemotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab monotherapy in patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. The planned sample size is 900 patients, the primary end point is event-free survival and safety and tolerability will be evaluated. Clinical trial registration: NCT04592913 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background: Gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is a rare cancer associated with poor prognosis. The genetic factors conferring predisposition to GEJ adenocarcinoma have yet to be identified., Methods: We analyzed germline testing results from 23 381 cancer patients undergoing tumor-normal sequencing, of which 312 individuals had GEJ adenocarcinoma. Genomic profiles and clinico-pathologic features were analyzed for the GEJ adenocarcinomas. Silencing of ATM and ATR was performed using validated short-interfering RNA species in GEJ, esophageal, and gastric adenocarcinoma cell lines. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic ATM variants were identified in 18 of 312 patients (5.8%), and bi-allelic inactivation of ATM through loss of heterozygosity of the wild-type allele was detected in all (16 of 16) samples with sufficient tumor content. Germline ATM-mutated GEJ adenocarcinomas largely lacked somatic mutations in TP53, were more likely to harbor MDM2 amplification, and harbored statistically significantly fewer somatic single nucleotide variants (2.0 mutations/Mb vs 7.9 mutations/Mb; P < .001). A statistically significantly higher proportion of germline ATM-mutated than ATM-wild-type GEJ adenocarcinoma patients underwent a curative resection (10 [100%] vs 92 [86.8%], P = .04; Fisher's exact test.), A synthetic lethal interaction between short-interfering RNA silencing of ATM and ATR was observed in the models analyzed., Conclusions: Our results indicate that germline pathogenic variants in ATM drive oncogenesis in GEJ adenocarcinoma and might result in a distinct clinical phenotype. Given the high prevalence of germline ATM-mutated GEJ adenocarcinomas, genetic testing for individuals with GEJ adenocarcinomas may be considered to better inform prognostication, treatment decisions, and future cancer risk., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Resistance mechanisms and heterogeneity in HER2-positive gastric cancers (GC) limit Trastuzumab benefit in 32% of patients, and other targeted therapies have failed in clinical trials. Using patient samples, patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), partially humanized biological models, and HER2-targeted imaging technologies we demonstrate the role of caveolin-1 (CAV1) as a complementary biomarker in GC selection for Trastuzumab therapy. In retrospective analyses of samples from patients enrolled on Trastuzumab trials, the CAV1-high profile associates with low membrane HER2 density and low patient survival. We show a negative correlation between CAV1 tumoral protein levels - a major protein of cholesterol-rich membrane domains - and Trastuzumab-drug conjugate TDM1 tumor uptake. Finally, CAV1 depletion using knockdown or pharmacologic approaches (statins) increases antibody drug efficacy in tumors with incomplete HER2 membranous reactivity. In support of these findings, background statin use in patients associates with enhanced antibody efficacy. Together, this work provides preclinical justification and clinical evidence that require prospective investigation of antibody drugs combined with statins to delay drug resistance in tumors., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Standard first-line chemotherapy results in disease progression and death within one year in most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma 1-4 . Nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated superior overall survival versus chemotherapy at 12-month follow-up in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction or oesophageal adenocarcinoma in the randomized, global CheckMate 649 phase 3 trial 5 (programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score ≥5 and all randomized patients). On the basis of these results, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is now approved as a first-line treatment for these patients in many countries 6 . Nivolumab and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab have distinct but complementary mechanisms of action that contribute to the restoration of anti-tumour T-cell function and induction of de novo anti-tumour T-cell responses, respectively 7-11 . Treatment combining 1 mg kg -1 nivolumab with 3 mg kg -1 ipilimumab demonstrated clinically meaningful anti-tumour activity with a manageable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer 12 . Here we report both long-term follow-up results comparing nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone and the first results comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone from CheckMate 649. After the 24.0-month minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥5 (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.61, 0.81) and all randomized patients (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.71, 0.88). Overall survival in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. No new safety signals were identified. Our results support the continued use of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as standard first-line treatment for advanced gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Metastatic progression is the main cause of death in cancer patients, whereas the underlying genomic mechanisms driving metastasis remain largely unknown. Here, we assembled MSK-MET, a pan-cancer cohort of over 25,000 patients with metastatic diseases. By analyzing genomic and clinical data from this cohort, we identified associations between genomic alterations and patterns of metastatic dissemination across 50 tumor types. We found that chromosomal instability is strongly correlated with metastatic burden in some tumor types, including prostate adenocarcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, and HR+/HER2+ breast ductal carcinoma, but not in others, including colorectal cancer and high-grade serous ovarian cancer, where copy-number alteration patterns may be established early in tumor development. We also identified somatic alterations associated with metastatic burden and specific target organs. Our data offer a valuable resource for the investigation of the biological basis for metastatic spread and highlight the complex role of chromosomal instability in cancer progression., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests S.C. receives consulting fees from Novartis, Lilly, and Sanofi and research funding from Daiichi-Sankyo and Paige.ai. J.J.H. receives consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Exelexis, Eisai, QED, Cytomx, Zymeworks, Adaptiimmune, and ImVax and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. C.A.I.-D. receives research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. P. Razavi received consultation/Ad board/Honoraria from Novartis, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca, Epic Sciences, Inivata, Natera, and Tempus and institutional grant/funding from Grail, Illumina, Novartis, Epic Sciences, and ArcherDx. C.M.R. has consulted regarding oncology drug development with AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Jazz, Lilly, and Syros and serves on the scientific advisory boards of Bridge Medicines, Earli, and Harpoon Therapeutics. D.Z. receives research funding from Astra Zeneca, Plexxikon, and Genentech and consulting fees from Merck, Synlogic Therapeutics, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Xencor, Memgen, Immunos, Agenus, Hookipa, Calidi, and Synthekine. B.W. has an ad hoc membership advisory board Repare Therapeutics. W.A. receives speaking honoraria from Roche, Medscape, Aptitude Health, and Clinical Education Alliance; consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Janssen, ORIC pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Zenith Epigenetics, Clovis Oncology, ORIC pharmaceuticals, and Epizyme. G.K.A.-A. receives research funding from Arcus, Agios, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BioNtech, BMS, Celgene, Flatiron, Genentech/Roche, Genoscience, Incyte, Polaris, Puma, QED, Sillajen, and Yiviva and consulting fees from Adicet, Agios, Astra Zeneca, Alnylam, Autem, Bayer, Beigene, Berry Genomics, Cend, Celgene, CytomX, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Flatiron, Genentech/Roche, Genoscience, Helio, Incyte, Ipsen, Legend Biotech, Loxo, Merck, MINA, Nerviano, QED, Redhill, Rafael, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Surface Oncology, Therabionics, Twoxar, Vector, and Yiviva. E.M.O. receives research funding from Genentech/Roche, Celgene/BMS, BioNTech, BioAtla, AstraZeneca, Arcus, Elicio, Parker Institute, and AstraZeneca and consulting fees from Cytomx Therapeutics (DSMB), Rafael Therapeutics (DSMB), Sobi, Silenseed, Tyme, Seagen, Molecular Templates, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioNTech, Ipsen, Polaris, Merck, IDEAYA, Cend, AstraZeneca, Noxxon, BioSapien, Bayer (spouse), Genentech-Roche (spouse), Celgene-BMS (spouse), and Eisai (spouse). M.A.P. receive consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, Incyte, NewLink Genetics, Aduro, Eisai, and Pfizer; honoraria from BMS and Merck; research support from RGenix, Infinity, BMS, Merck, Array BioPharma, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. G.J.R. has institutional research funding from Mirait, Takeda, Merck, Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer. S.F.B. holds a patent related to some of the work described targeting CIN in advanced cancer. He owns equity in, receives compensation from, and serves as a consultant and the scientific advisory board and board of directors of Volastra Therapeutics Inc. A.N.S. has advisory board/personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, and Castle Biosciences; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Xcovery, Polaris, Novartis, Pfizer, and Checkmate Pharmaceuticals; and research funding from OBI-Pharma, GSK, Silenseed, BMS, and Lilly. R.Y. receives consulting fees from Array BioPharma/Pfizer, Mirati Therapeutics, and Natera and research funding from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. D.R.J. is member of the advisory council for Astra Zeneca and member of the Clinical Trial Steering Committee for Merck. D.M. reports disclosures from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. S.P.S. is shareholder and consultant for Canexia Health Inc. M.F.B receives consulting fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, and PetDx and research funding from Grail. D.B.S. has received consulted for and received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Vividion Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapetuics, and BridgeBio. B.N. is an employee of Loxo Oncology at Lilly., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab is a standard second-line regimen for patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, but clinical benefit remains modest. One potential resistance mechanism to VEGFR2 inhibition is activation of the PDGF/PDGFR pathway, which can be blocked by the selective inhibitor crenolanib. Therefore, we performed a phase I/Ib study of crenolanib in combination with paclitaxel/ramucirumab., Methods: Patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma refractory to first-line therapy received escalating doses of crenolanib [60 mg twice daily (BID) to 100 mg three times daily (TID)] in combination with paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 and ramucirumab 8 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary objective was to determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of crenolanib. Additional patients were enrolled in the dose expansion cohort to assess 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) at the MTD., Results: We enrolled 19 patients in the dose escalation phase and 8 patients in the dose expansion phase at the MTD of crenolanib 100 mg BID. Common grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events included leukopenia (19%), anemia (11%) and neutropenia (11%). In the 14 patients treated at the MTD, 6-month PFS was 43% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23-78%] and the objective response rate (ORR) was 42% (95% CI 15-72%). The trial was terminated early due to withdrawal of crenolanib by the sponsor., Conclusions: The addition of crenolanib to paclitaxel/ramucirumab is safe and well-tolerated at a dose level up to 100 mg BID., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03193918. June 19, 2017., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Comprehensive genomic profiling has defined key oncogenic drivers and distinct molecular subtypes in esophagogastric cancer; however, the number of clinically actionable alterations remains limited. To establish preclinical models for testing genomically driven therapeutic strategies, we generated and characterized a large collection of esophagogastric cancer patient-derived xenografts (PDXs)., Materials and Methods: We established a biobank of 98 esophagogastric cancer PDX models derived from primary tumors and metastases. Clinicopathologic features of each PDX and the corresponding patient sample were annotated, including stage at diagnosis, treatment history, histology, and biomarker profile. To identify oncogenic DNA alterations, we analyzed and compared targeted sequencing performed on PDX and parent tumor pairs. We conducted xenotrials in genomically defined models with oncogenic drivers., Results: From April 2010 to June 2019, we implanted 276 patient tumors, of which 98 successfully engrafted (35.5%). This collection is enriched for PDXs derived from patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (62 models, 63%), the majority of which were refractory to standard therapies including trastuzumab. Factors positively correlating with engraftment included advanced stage, metastatic origin, intestinal-type histology, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positivity. Mutations in TP53 and alterations in receptor tyrosine kinases ( ERBB2 and EGFR ), RAS/PI3K pathway genes, cell-cycle mediators ( CDKN2A and CCNE1 ), and CDH1 were the predominant oncogenic drivers, recapitulating clinical tumor sequencing. We observed antitumor activity with rational combination strategies in models established from treatment-refractory disease., Conclusion: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center PDX collection recapitulates the heterogeneity of esophagogastric cancer and is a powerful resource to investigate mechanisms driving tumor progression, identify predictive biomarkers, and develop therapeutic strategies for molecularly defined subsets of esophagogastric cancer., Competing Interests: Daniela MolenaHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Johnson & Johnson, UroGen pharma, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca/MedImmune Steven B. MaronStock and Other Ownership Interests: Calithera BiosciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Natera, Basilea, Daichi Sankyo, Bicara Therapeutics, NovartisResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer David R. JonesConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca Jaclyn F. HechtmanEmployment: NeoGenomics LaboratoriesStock and Other Ownership Interests: NeoGenomics LaboratoriesHonoraria: WebMD, Illumina, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Cor2Ed, Axiom Healthcare Strategies, BayerResearch Funding: Bayer, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim David B. SolitThis author is a member of the JCO Precision Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Scorpion Therapeutics, Vividion Therapeutics, Fore BiotherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Lilly, BridgeBio Pharma, Scorpion Therapeutics, Vividion Therapeutics, Syros Pharmaceuticals Yelena Y. JanjigianStock and Other Ownership Interests: RgenixConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Rgenix, Bayer, Imugene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Zymeworks, Basilea Pharmaceutical, Michael J. Hennessy Associates, Paradigm, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Bayer (Inst), Rgenix (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck (Inst), Lilly (Inst), NCI (Inst), Department of Defense (Inst), Cycle for Survival (Inst), Fred's Team (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)Other Relationship: Clinical Care Options, Axis Medical Education, Research to PracticeNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.