Search

Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations extend overall survival (OS) while anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy is non-inferior to sorafenib in treatment-naïve, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Clinicogenomic features are posited to influence patient outcomes. Methods The primary objective of this retrospective study was to define the clinical, pathologic, and genomic factors associated with outcomes to ICI therapy in patients with HCC. Patients with histologically confirmed advanced HCC treated with ICI at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2012 to 2022 were included. Association between clinical, pathological, and genomic characteristics were assessed with univariable and multivariable Cox regression model for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Results Two-hundred and forty-two patients were treated with ICI-based therapy. Patients were predominantly male (82%) with virally mediated HCC (53%) and Child Pugh A score (70%). Median follow-up was 28 months (0.5-78.4). Median PFS for those treated in 1st line, 2nd line and ≥ 3rd line was 4.9 (range: 2.9-6.2), 3.1 (2.3-4.0), and 2.5 (2.1-4.0) months, respectively. Median OS for those treated in 1st line, 2nd line, and ≥ 3rd line was 16 (11-22), 7.5 (6.4-11), and 6.4 (4.6-26) months, respectively. Poor liver function and performance status associated with worse PFS and OS, while viral hepatitis C was associated with favorable outcome. Genetic alterations were not associated with outcomes. Conclusion Clinicopathologic factors were the major determinates of outcomes for patients with advanced HCC treated with ICI. Molecular profiling did not aid in stratification of ICI outcomes. Future studies should explore alternative biomarkers such as the level of immune activation or the pretreatment composition of the immune tumor microenvironment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mutated Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) is the most common oncogene alteration in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and KRAS glycine to cystine substitution at codon 12 (G12C) mutations (KRAS G12Cmut) are observed in 1%-2%. Several inhibitors of KRAS G12C have recently demonstrated promise in solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer. Little is known regarding clinical, genomics, and outcome data of this population. Methods Patients with pancreatic cancer and KRAS G12Cmut were identified at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and via the American Association of Cancer Research Project Genomics, Evidence, Neoplasia, Information, Exchange database. Clinical, treatment, genomic, and outcomes data were analyzed. A cohort of patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with non-G12C KRAS pancreatic cancer was included for comparison. Results Among 3571 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 39 (1.1%) with KRAS G12Cmut were identified. Median age was 67 years, and 56% were female. Median body mass index was 29.2 kg/m2, and 67% had a smoking history. Median overall survival was 13 months (95% CI: 9.4 months, not reached) for stage IV and 26 months (95% CI: 23 months, not reached) for stage I-III. Complete genomic data (via American Association of Cancer Research Project Genomics, Evidence, Neoplasia, Information, Exchange database) was available for 74 patients. Most common co-alterations included TP53 (73%), CDKN2A (33%), SMAD4 (28%), and ARID1A (21%). Compared with a large cohort (n = 2931) of non-G12C KRAS- mutated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, ARID1A co-mutations were more frequent in KRAS G12Cmut (P  < .05). Overall survival did not differ between KRAS G12Cmut and non-G12C KRAS pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Germline pathogenic variants were identified in 17% of patients; 2 patients received KRAS G12C-directed therapy. Conclusion Pancreatic cancer and KRAS G12Cmut may be associated with a distinct clinical phenotype. Genomic features are similar to non-G12C KRAS- mutated pancreatic cancer, although enrichment of ARID1A co-mutations was observed. Targeting of KRAS G12C in pancreatic cancer provides a precedent for broader KRAS targeting in pancreatic cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Esophageal adenocarcinoma, including adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction, is uncommon in the United States, but is associated with a rising incidence in young adults, and has a traditionally poor prognosis. Despite the incremental benefits that have been made with multimodality approaches to locally advanced disease, most patients will go on to develop metastatic disease, and long-term outcomes remain suboptimal. Over the last decade, PET-CT has emerged as a key tool in the management of this disease, with several prospective and retrospective studies evaluating its role in this disease. Herein, we review the key data pertaining to the use of PET-CT in the management of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinoma, with a focus on staging, prognostication, PET-CT adapted therapy in the neoadjuvant setting, and surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report a case of a 60-year-old male with metachronous primary malignancies, pancreatic cancer and malignant melanoma which recurred simultaneously. Both cancers were challenging to diagnose and throughout the case at different times, the presence of two active malignancies obscured the clinical picture. A bleeding gastric lesion found in the stomach 6 months after a distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma revealed metastatic melanoma, presumed secondary from a melanoma excised from the patient's back 2 years previously. During surgery intended to resect the gastric lesion, peritoneal nodularity was identified, with histology confirming metastatic pancreas cancer. This case highlights two main points of interest. Firstly it emphasises the role for consideration of a genetic predisposition in young patients with more than one primary malignancy. The man in this case was not informed of his family history as he was adopted. If he had knowledge of previous family history, he may have been able to provide information to expedite arrival at the diagnosis of a CDKN2A mutation (melanoma-pancreatic carcinoma syndrome). In addition, this case also raises the issue of the challenges we face when treating synchronous primary malignancies. The two malignancies here behaved equally aggressively and posed obstacles for treatment as there is no mutual method of carcinogenesis that could be targeted with treatment; therefore, treatment modalities had to be chosen to treat each malignancy separately. To date, studies evaluating the role for targeted therapy in the setting of CDKN2A mutations have not conclusively provided meaningful benefits to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Bevacizumab has demonstrated activity in glioblastoma (GBM), but the true benefits and optimal dose‐schedule are debated. A lower dose‐schedule than standard‐dose bevacizumab (10 mg/kg 2‐weekly) might offer similar benefits with lower costs. At our Institution, patients are randomly assigned at time of primary diagnosis to Neuro‐Oncologists, who have varying practices in terms of bevacizumab dose‐schedule upon progression. Methods: In a retrospective analysis we examined overall survival (OS), measured from first administered bevacizumab dose until death, according to dose‐schedule. Patients with de novo WHO Grade IV GBM who received standard‐ or reduced‐dose (5 mg/kg 2‐weekly) bevacizumab were included. MGMT methylation status and time from diagnosis to bevacizumab start were examined as prognostic variables. Clinical benefit and a comparative cost analysis were assessed. Results: In total, 1127 bevacizumab doses were administered to 118 patients [Median: 7, Range: 1‐44]. Median OS (mOS) was 5.8 months. 69 (59%) patients received standard‐dose bevacizumab (mOS: 5.97 months) and 49 patients received reduced‐dose (mOS: 5.7 months). No statistically significant difference in OS between dosing schedule was seen (HR: 1.11, P‐value:.584). Patients with MGMT methylated tumors (43%) had improved OS compared to those with unmethylated tumors; 7.03 vs 4.97 months (HR: 0.61, P‐value:.027). If all patients were treated with reduced‐dose bevacizumab, an estimated €2.4M cost reduction would be observed. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, reduced‐dose bevacizumab schedule resulted in similar OS to standard‐dose bevacizumab monotherapy with substantial cost savings. MGMT methylation appears to convey a survival benefit in the setting of bevacizumab treatment for progressive GBM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (mFFX) is standard of care for fit individuals with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). There are limited data on adjuvant mFFX outcomes outside clinical trials., Methods: Institutional databases queried to identify patients with resected PDAC who received ≥1 dose adjuvant mFFX. Primary endpoints: recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints: clinical factors, genomic features associated with outcomes. RFS and OS were estimated with Kaplan-Meier. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to associate clinico-genomic features correlated with survival outcomes., Results: N = 147 identified between 01/2015-01/2023. Median age: 67 years; N = 57 (39%) >70 years. Unfavorable prognostic features: N = 52 (36%) N2 nodal status, N = 115 (78%) lymphovascular invasion), and N = 133 (90%) perineural invasion. Median time from surgery to start mFFX: 1.78 months (m) (IQR 1.45, 2.12). N = 124 (84%) completed 12 doses; N = 98 (67%) stopped oxaliplatin early for neuropathy (median 10 doses; range 4-12). Further dosing characteristics are summarized in Supplementary Table 3. With median follow up of 35.1 m, median RFS (mRFS) 26 m (95% CI 19, 39) and median OS (mOS) not reached. For >70 cohort, mRFS 23 m (95% CI 14, NR) and mOS 51 m (95% CI 37, NR). mFFX started <8 weeks from resection associated with improved RFS (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41, 0.96; p = .033) and OS (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.3, 0.94; p = .030). KRAS mutation and whole genome doubling trended to shorter RFS and OS. Homologous recombination deficiency status did not confer improved survival outcomes., Conclusions: Adjuvant mFFX is effective and tolerable in resected PDAC in a non-trial setting, including for patients >70 years., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Targeted therapies have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, but their impact is limited by rapid emergence of resistance. We hypothesized that an understanding of the underlying genetic mechanisms and intrinsic tumor features that mediate resistance to therapy will guide new therapeutic strategies and ultimately allow the prevention of resistance., Experimental Design: We assembled a series of 52 patients with paired pretreatment and progression samples who received therapy targeting EGFR (n = 17), BRAF V600E (n = 17), KRAS G12C (n = 15), or amplified HER2 (n = 3) to identify molecular and clinical factors associated with time on treatment (TOT)., Results: All patients stopped treatment for progression and TOT did not vary by oncogenic driver (P = 0.5). Baseline disease burden (≥3 vs. <3 sites, P = 0.02), the presence of hepatic metastases (P = 0.02), and gene amplification on baseline tissue (P = 0.03) were each associated with shorter TOT. We found evidence of chromosomal instability (CIN) at progression in patients with baseline MAPK pathway amplifications and those with acquired gene amplifications. At resistance, copy-number changes (P = 0.008) and high number (≥5) of acquired alterations (P = 0.04) were associated with shorter TOT. Patients with hepatic metastases demonstrated both higher number of emergent alterations at resistance and enrichment of mutations involving receptor tyrosine kinases., Conclusions: Our genomic analysis suggests that high baseline CIN or effective induction of enhanced mutagenesis on targeted therapy underlies rapid progression. Longer response appears to result from a progressive acquisition of genomic or chromosomal instability in the underlying cancer or from the chance event of a new resistance alteration., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)