Search

BackgroundThis retrospective study aims to investigate the activity of retreatment with anti-EGFR-based therapies in order to explore the concept of clonal evolution by evaluating the impact of prior activity and intervening time interval.MethodsEighty-nine KRAS exon 2-wild-type metastatic colorectal patients were retreated on phase I/II clinical trials containing anti-EGFR therapies after progressing on prior cetuximab or panitumumab. Response on prior anti-EGFR therapy was defined retrospectively per physician-records as response or stable disease ≥6 months. Multivariable statistical methods included a multiple logistic regression model for response, and Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival.ResultsRetreatment anti-EGFR agents were cetuximab (n = 76) or cetuximab plus erlotinib (n = 13). The median interval time between prior and retreatment regimens was 4.57 months (range: 0.46-58.7). Patients who responded to the prior cetuximab or panitumumab were more likely to obtain clinical benefit to the retreatment compared to the non-responders in both univariate (p = 0.007) and multivariate analyses (OR: 3.38, 95 % CI: 1.27, 9.31, p = 0.019). The clinical benefit rate on retreatment also showed a marginally significant association with interval time between the two anti-EGFR based therapies (p = 0.053). Median progression-free survival on retreatment was increased in prior responders (4.9 months, 95 % CI: 3.6, 6.2) compared to prior non-responders (2.5 months, 95 % CI, 1.58, 3.42) in univariate (p = 0.064) and multivariate analysis (HR: 0.70, 95 % CI: 0.43-1.15, p = 0.156).ConclusionOur data lends support to the concept of clonal evolution, though the clinical impact appears less robust than previously reported. Further work to determine which patients benefit from retreatment post progression is needed.

Background: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized treatment of mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there is no evidence on the optimal treatment duration. We aimed to compare outcomes of different immunotherapy durations., Methods: An international multicenter retrospective cohort study of immunotherapy-naïve dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients who received immunotherapy between 2014-2024. Fixed treatment duration of two years was compared to treatment duration beyond two years. Fixed treatment duration of one year was compared to treatment duration beyond one year. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who experienced CR. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression model were used to analyze the effect of all exposure variables on OS., Results: The study cohort included 757 dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICB. Median follow-up time was 46.7 months (IQR 28.5-70.3). There was no statistically significant difference in OS between patients treated for a two-year fixed-duration (n = 83) and those treated beyond two years (n = 139) in both the univariable and multivariable analysis (HR=0.65 95 %CI 0.14-3.07 p = 0.59 and HR=0.61 95 %CI 0.12-3.10 p = 0.6, respectively). The comparison between one-year fixed-duration versus continuing treatment beyond one year included 27 and 330 patients, respectively. For patients who achieved CR, discontinuing treatment after one year was not associated with a negative impact on OS (p = 0.5)., Conclusions: Discontinuing immunotherapy after two years is a reasonable option for dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients with ongoing response. Treatment discontinuation after one year may be considered for patients achieving CR. Further prospective studies are needed to define the most appropriate duration of therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. SK reported other support from Genentech, EMD Serono, Merck, Holy Stone Healthcare, Novartis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer Health, Redx Pharma, Ipsen, HalioDx, Lutris, Jacobio, Pfizer, Repare Therapeutics, Inivata, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, Xilis, Abbvie, Amal Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Mirati Therapeutics, Flame Biosciences, Servier, Carina Biotech, Bicara Therapeutics, Endeavor BioMedicines, Numab, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Genomic Health, Frontier Medicines, Replimune, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Cardiff Oncology, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb-Medarex, Amgen, Tempus, Foundation Medicine, Harbinger Oncology, Takeda, CureTeq, Zentalis, Black Stone Therapeutics, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina, Tachyon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Biocartis, Guardant Health, Array BioPharma, Genentech/Roche, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Navire outside the submitted work. TA reported attending advisory board meetings and receiving consulting fees from Abbvie, Astellas, Aptitude Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Nordic Oncology, Seagen, Servier, Takeda and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen and Servier; and a DMC member role for Inspirna and support for meetings from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co. Inc. and Servier outside the submitted work. MJO reported personal fees from Nouscom, Bayer, Merck, Gritstone, Pfizer, and Janssen outside the submitted work. FP reported receiving institutional research grants from BMS, Incyte, Agenus, Amgen, Lilly and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Amgen, Merck-Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Servier, Bayer, Takeda, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Rottapharm, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Seagen/Pfizer, Beigene outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Disparity in overall survival (OS) and differences in the frequency of driver gene variants by race and ethnicity have been separately observed in patients with colorectal cancer; however, how these differences contribute to survival disparity is unknown., Objective: To quantify the association of molecular, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates with racial and ethnic disparities in overall survival among patients with colorectal cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-level cancer center using relevant data on all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from January 1, 1973, to March 1, 2023. The relative contribution of variables to the disparity was determined using mediation analysis with sequential multivariate Cox regression models., Main Outcome: OS, from diagnosis date and from start of first-line chemotherapy., Results: The study population of 47 178 patients (median [IQR] age, 57.0 [49-66] years; 20 465 [43.4%] females and 26 713 [56.6%] males; 3.0% Asian, 8.7% Black, 8.8% Hispanic, and 79.4% White individuals) had a median (IQR) follow-up from initial diagnosis of 124 (174) months and OS of 55 (145) months. Compared with White patients, Black patients had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.24; P <.001), whereas Asian and Hispanic patients had better OS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.74; P <.001; and 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P <.001, respectively). When restricted to patients with metastatic disease, the greatest disparity was between Black patients compared with White patients (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.06-1.37; P <.001). Evaluating changes in OS disparity over 20 years showed disparity decreasing among Asian, Hispanic, and White patients, but increasing between Black patients and White patients (HRs, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31 for 2008-2012; 1.24, 95% CI, 1.08-1.42 for 2013-2017; and 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20-1.87 for 2018-2023). Survival outcomes for first-line chemotherapy were worse for Black patients compared with White patients (median OS, 18 vs 26 months; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). Among 7628 patients who had clinical molecular testing, APC, KRAS, and PIK3CA showed higher variant frequency in Black patients (false discovery rate [FDR], 0.01; < 0.001; and 0.01, respectively), whereas BRAF and KIT were higher among White patients (FDR, 0.001 and 0.01). Mediation analysis identified neighborhood socioeconomic status as the greatest contributor to OS disparity (29%), followed by molecular characteristics (microsatellite instability status, KRAS variation and BRAF variation, 10%), and tumor sidedness (9%)., Conclusions: This single-center cohort study identified substantial OS disparity and differing frequencies of driver gene variations by race and ethnicity. Socioeconomic status had the largest contribution but accounted for less than one-third of the disparity, with substantial contribution from tumor molecular features. Further study of the associations of genetic ancestry and the molecular pathogenesis of colorectal cancer with chemotherapy response is needed.

Importance: Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA) is characterized by clinical and genomic heterogeneity. A previously developed genomic classifier defined biologically distinct phenotypes with greater accuracy than standard histologic classification. External validation is needed before routine clinical use., Objective: To test external validity of the prognostic value of the hidden genome classifier of AA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study took place at 6 international academic institutions. Consecutive patients (n = 192) who underwent curative-intent resection of histologically confirmed AA were included. The data were analyzed from January 2005 through July 2020., Exposures: The multilevel meta-feature regression model previously trained on a prospectively sequenced cohort of 3411 patients (1001 pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 165 distal bile duct adenocarcinoma, and 2245 colorectal adenocarcinoma) was applied to AA sequencing data to quantify the relative proportions of parental cell of origin., Main Outcome and Measures: Genomic classification was correlated with immunohistologic subtype (intestinal [INT] or pancreatobiliary [PB]) and with overall survival (OS), using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models., Results: Among 192 patients with AA (median age, 69.0 [IQR, 60.0-74.0] years and 134 were male [64%]), concordance between immunohistologic and genomic subtypes was 55%. Most INT subtype tumors were categorized into the colorectal genomic subtype (43 of 57 [72.9%]). Of the 114 PB subtype tumors, 29 had a pancreatic genomic profile (25.4%) and 24 had a distal bile duct genomic profile (21.1%). Whereas the standard immunohistologic subtypes were not associated with survival (log rank P = .26), predicted genomic probabilities were correlated with survival probability. Genomic scores with higher colorectal probability were associated with higher survival probability; higher pancreatic and distal bile duct probabilities were associated with lower survival probability., Conclusions and Relevance: The AA genomic classifier is reproducible with available molecular testing in a diverse international cohort of patients and improves stratification of the divergent clinical outcomes beyond standard immunohistologic classification. These data provide a molecular classification that may be incorporated into clinical trials for prospective validation.

Background: Visuospatial neglect is a common consequence of stroke and is characterized by impaired attention to contralesional space. Currently, the extent and time course of recovery from neglect are not clearly established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the recovery trajectory of poststroke neglect with standard treatment., Methods: PsycInfo, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched for articles reporting recovery rates of neglect after stroke. Time since stroke was categorized into early (0-3 months), mid (3-6 months), and late (>6 months) recovery phases. Random-effects models for pooled prevalence were generated for each phase, and potential sources of heterogeneity were explored with metaregressions. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, with low-quality studies excluded in sensitivity analyses., Results: The search captured 4130 articles including duplicates, and 111 full-text reviews were undertaken. A total of 27 studies reporting data from 839 stroke survivors with neglect were included for review. Meta-analyses indicated a recovery rate of 42% in the early phase, which increased to 53% in the mid-recovery phase. Additional recovery in the late phase was minimal, with an estimated 56% recovery rate. Heterogeneity of studies was high (I 2 >75%) in all 3 phases of recovery. Estimates were robust to sensitivity analyses. Metaregressions showed significantly greater recovery in studies that included patients with left-hemisphere lesions (β=0.275, P <0.05, I 2 =84%)., Conclusions: Most recovery from neglect occurs in the first 3 months, although additional gains can be expected up to 6 months poststroke. While a large proportion of patients recover from neglect, over 40% show persistent symptoms. Further research is needed on effective rehabilitation interventions, particularly focusing on patients most at risk of chronic visuospatial neglect., Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42023388763., Competing Interests: None.

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design., Significance: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes)., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The prognosis for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor. Secondary brain metastasis (Br-M) occurs in less than 1% of patients. Clinical characteristics and molecular alterations have not been characterized in this rare patients' subset., Materials and Methods: The Foundry software platform was used to retrospectively query electronic health records for patients with Br-M secondary to PDAC from 2005 to 2023; clinical, molecular, and overall survival (OS) data were analyzed., Results: Br-M was diagnosed in 44 patients with PDAC. Median follow-up was 78 months; median OS from initial PDAC diagnosis was 47 months. Median duration from PDAC diagnosis to Br-M detection was 24 months; median OS from Br-M diagnosis was 3 months. At Br-M diagnosis, 82% (n = 36) of patients had elevated CA19-9. Lung was the most common preexisting metastatic location (71%) with Br-M, followed by liver (66%). Br-M were most frequently observed in the frontal lobe (34%, n = 15), cerebellar region (23%, n = 10), and leptomeninges (18%, n = 8). KRAS mutations were detected in 94.1% (n = 16) of patients who had molecular data available (n = 17) with KRASG12V being the most frequent subtype 47% (n = 8); KRASG12D in 29% (n = 5); KRASG12R in 18% (n = 3). Patients who underwent Br-M surgical resection (n = 5) had median OS of 8.6 months, while median OS following stereotactic radiosurgery only (n = 11) or whole-brain radiation only (n = 20) was 3.3 and 2.8 months, respectively., Conclusion: Br-M is a late PDAC complication, resulting in an extremely poor prognosis especially in leptomeningeal disease. KRAS was mutated in 94.1% of the patients and the KRASG12V subtype was prevalent., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: POLE and POLD1 proofreading deficiency (POLE/D1pd) define a rare subtype of ultramutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; over 100 mut/Mb). Disease-specific data about the activity and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in POLE/D1pd mCRC are lacking and it is unknown whether outcomes may be different from mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) mCRCs treated with ICIs., Patients and Methods: In this global study, we collected 27 patients with mCRC harboring POLE/D1 mutations leading to proofreading deficiency and treated with anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 alone +/- anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 agents. We collected clinicopathological and genomic characteristics, response, and survival outcomes after ICIs of POLE/D1pd mCRC and compared them with a cohort of 610 dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICIs. Further genomic analyses were carried out in an independent cohort of 7241 CRCs to define POLE and POLD1pd molecular profiles and mutational signatures., Results: POLE/D1pd was associated with younger age, male sex, fewer RAS/BRAF driver mutations, and predominance of right-sided colon cancers. Patients with POLE/D1pd mCRC showed a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC (89% versus 54%; P = 0.01). After a median follow-up of 24.9 months (interquartile range: 11.3-43.0 months), patients with POLE/D1pd showed a significantly superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.74, P = 0.01] and superior overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.18, P = 0.09). In multivariable analyses including the type of DNA repair defect, POLE/D1pd was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.69, P = 0.013) and OS (HR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.98, P = 0.047). Molecular profiling showed that POLE/D1pd tumors have higher tumor mutational burden (TMB). Responses were observed in both subtypes and were associated with the intensity of POLE/D1pd signature., Conclusions: Patients with POLE/D1pd mCRC showed more favorable outcomes compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC to treatment with ICIs in terms of tumor response and survival., Competing Interests: Disclosure BR served in a consulting/advisory role and received research funding from Neophore LTD. AM owns stock from Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Deka Biosciences, HotSpot Therapeutics, Marengo Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs; served as consultant or in an advisory role from Adagene, AstraZeneca, BiolineRx, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Deka Biosciences, Depth Charge Therapeutics, EISAI, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Gritstone Bio, Guidepoint Global, HiFiBiO Therapeutics, Hotspot Therapeutics, ImCheck therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Lytix Biopharma, Medicxi, MSD, Neogene Therapeutics, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pegaone, Pierre-Fabre, Redx Pharma, Roche, Sanofi, SERVIER, Shattuck Labs, Sotio, Third Rock Ventures; received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD (Inst), Transgene (Inst); is an inventor on a patent related to monoclonal antibodies against CD81 (Stanford University); received travel, accommodations, expenses from Sotio; and has other relationship with Elsevier. AC declared research funding from Seagen and GSK and has served in advisory boards of Seagen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Abbvie, Illumina, and Amgen. NHS served in consulting/advisory board: Agenus, Regeneron, Puretech, Novartis, Numab, AstraZeneca, GSK, ABL Bio, Revitope; and received research funding from Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, Puretech, Immunocore, Regeneron, Agenus. LS served in the scientific Advisory Board for Genor Biopharma, Ltd. AMV reports consulting or advisory role for Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, PAIGE; has received research funding from Illumina, Lilly, Verastem, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Silenseed; and received travel support from Roche. RY has served as an advisor for Pfizer, Mirati Therapeutics, Revolution Medicine, Loxo@Lilly, and Amgen; received a speaker’s honorarium from Zai Lab’ and has received research support to her institution from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Boundless Bio. GYK received research funding to institution from AstraZeneca, BMS, CARsgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, I-MAB, Jazz, Merck, Oncolys, Pieris, Triumvira, Zymeworks; served as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo, I-MAB, Jazz, Merck, Pieris, Zymeworks; and travel support from Dava Oncology and I-MAB. CBW has received honoraria/speakers’ fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Chugai, Celgene, Falk, GSK, MSD, Merck, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche, Servier, SIRTeX, Taiho; served on advisory boards for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, MSD, Servier, Shire/Baxalta, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, RedHill, Roche; has received travel support by Bayer, Celgene, Janssen, RedHill, Roche, Servier, Taiho; has received research grants (institutional) by Roche; serves as an officer for the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Arbeitsgemeinschaft internistische Onkologie (AIO) and on expert committees for the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) and German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft); is a member of the EU Commission expert group: Mission Board for Cancer. BD and ABS are full time employees of Foundation Medicine and own stock and or stock options in Roche Holdings, Inc. CC served as expert testimony for Amgen; received honoraria as invited speaker for Bayer, Merck Serono, Servier; participated in advisory board for MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Takeda; reports institutional financial interest for Bayer as Coordinating PI, Hutchinson as Local PI, Merck as Coordinating PI, Roche as Coordinating PI, Seagen as Local PI, Servier as Coordinating PI. SL reports research funding (to institution) from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Servier; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Takeda. FP reports institutional research grants from BMS, Incyte, Agenus, Amgen, Lilly and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from BMS, MSD, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, Servier, Bayer, Takeda, Astellas, Johnson&Johnson, Rottapharm, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Seagen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Background: Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, including nivolumab, have demonstrated long-term survival benefit in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PD-1 and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) are distinct immune checkpoints that are often co-expressed on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and contribute to tumor-mediated T-cell dysfunction. Relatlimab is a LAG-3 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in combination with nivolumab in patients with melanoma. Here, we present the results from patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC treated with nivolumab plus relatlimab in the CheckMate 142 study., Methods: In this open-label, phase II study, previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC received nivolumab 240 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR)., Results: A total of 50 previously treated patients received nivolumab plus relatlimab. With median follow-up of 47.4 (range 43.9-49.2) months, investigator-assessed ORR was 50% (95% CI 36% to 65%) and disease control rate was 70% (95% CI 55% to 82%). The median time to response per investigator was 2.8 (range 1.3-33.1) months, and median duration of response was 42.7 (range 2.8-47.0+) months. The median progression-free survival per investigator was 27.5 (95% CI 5.3 to 43.7) months with a progression-free survival rate at 3 years of 38%, and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17.2 months to not estimable), with a 56% overall survival rate at 3 years. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (24%), asthenia (16%), and hypothyroidism (12%). Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs were reported in 14% of patients, and TRAEs of any grade leading to discontinuation were observed in 8% of patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus relatlimab provided durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated in previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic CRC., Trial Registration Number: NCT02060188., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJO reports consulting fees from Phanes Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Nouscom, Tempus, Roche, Bayer, Ellipses Pharma, Simcere, and Gritstone, and research grants from Roche, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Nouscom. FG reports consulting or advisory role for Merck Serono and Amgen; and speakers’ bureau for Servier, Eli Lilly, IQVIA, and Bristol Myers Squibb. MLLM reports payments/honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb. GL reports consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, honoraria from Merck Servier, and travel support from Roche. PG-A reports payment/honoraria for speakers’ bureaus from Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, Organon, and Ipsen; travel expenses from Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre, Servier, and MSD, and advisory activities for Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre, and Servier. EVC reports participation in advisory boards for Array BioPharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Halozyme, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex Medical, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; and research funding from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Servier, paid to his institution. BE-R reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Exelixis, EUSA Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Xencor; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dicephera, Ipsen, Neogenomics, Roche, and Seagen. SMMcC reports being an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb, owning stocks from Diversified Portfolio, and holding patents from RJS Biologics. BH reports owning stocks and being an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. ML reports being an employee of, owning stock in, and being an inventor of patents filed/owned by Bristol Myers Squibb. SL reports research funding from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, and Servier, and payment/honoraria for lectures/presentations from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, and Servier. MA, MW, AGH, and ACG report no conflicts of interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) remains an orphan disease with limited treatment options for patients unable to undergo surgical resection. Evidence supporting the efficacy of combined VEGF and PD-1 inhibition in other tumor types provided a compelling rationale for investigating this combination in AA, where immune checkpoint inhibitors have not been explored previously., Experimental Design: We conducted a prospective, single-arm phase II study evaluating efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in conjunction with bevacizumab (Atezo+Bev) in advanced, unresectable AA., Results: Patients treated with the Atezo+Bev combination had 100% disease control rate (1 partial response, 15 stable disease) with progression-free survival (PFS) of 18.3 months and overall survival not-yet-reached with median duration of follow-up of 40 months. These survival intervals were significantly longer relative to a clinically and molecularly matched synthetic control cohort treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy designed for colorectal cancer (PFS of 4.4 months, P = 0.041)., Conclusions: In light of recent data demonstrating a lack of efficacy of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, Atezo+Bev is a promising treatment option for patients with low-grade unresectable AA; further study is warranted., Significance: AA remains an orphan disease with limited systemic therapy options for patients who are not candidates for surgical resection. These data suggest activity from combined VEGF and PD-L1 inhibition that warrants further study., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Traditional constraints specify that 700 cc of liver should be spared a hepatotoxic dose when delivering liver-directed radiotherapy to reduce the risk of inducing liver failure. We investigated the role of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to identify and preferentially avoid functional liver during liver-directed radiation treatment planning in patients with preserved liver function but limited functional liver volume after receiving prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy or surgical resection., Methods: This phase I trial with a 3 + 3 design evaluated the safety of liver-directed radiotherapy using escalating functional liver radiation dose constraints in patients with liver metastases. Dose-limiting toxicities were assessed 6-8 weeks and 6 months after completing radiotherapy., Results: All 12 patients had colorectal liver metastases and received prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy; 8 patients underwent prior liver resection. Median computed tomography anatomical nontumor liver volume was 1584 cc (range = 764-2699 cc). Median SPECT functional liver volume was 1117 cc (range = 570-1928 cc). Median nontarget computed tomography and SPECT liver volumes below the volumetric dose constraint were 997 cc (range = 544-1576 cc) and 684 cc (range = 429-1244 cc), respectively. The prescription dose was 67.5-75 Gy in 15 fractions or 75-100 Gy in 25 fractions. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during follow-up. One-year in-field control was 57%. One-year overall survival was 73%., Conclusion: Liver-directed radiotherapy can be safely delivered to high doses when incorporating functional SPECT into the radiation treatment planning process, which may enable sparing of lower volumes of liver than traditionally accepted in patients with preserved liver function., Trial Registration: NCT02626312., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) appeared active in single-arm trials for patients with chemoresistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring microsatellite instability (MSI). Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this setting, we evaluated the effect size of ICIs using intra-patients comparison and ARCAD database as historical controls., Patients and Methods: Individual-patient data from NIPICOL and CheckMate 142 phase II trials that evaluated a combination of ICIs for MSI mCRC patients (N = 176) and from five non-ICI mCRC historical RCTs in second-line or latter (N = 4026) were analyzed. Firstly, promising of ICIs was identified using intra-patient comparison based on growth modulation index (GMI) defined the ratio of progression-free survivals (PFS) on ICIs and previous line of therapy. Survival outcomes of ICIs-treated patients were then compared with those matched non-ICIs treated from ARCAD database historical RCTs., Results: Among ICIs-treated patients, median PFS on ICIs was 32.66 (range 0.10-74.25) versus 4.07 months (range 0.7-49.87) on prior therapy, resulting on median GMI of 4.97 (range 0.07-59.51; hazard-ratio (HR)= 0.16 (95 %CI=0.11-0.22, P < 0.001)). Compared to matched non-ICI patients, in third-line, median overall survival (OS) was not reached with ICIs versus 3.52 months with placebo (HR=0.20, 95 %CI=0.10-0.41, P < 0.001), and 6.51 months with active drugs (HR=0.30, 95 %CI=0.15-0.60, P = 0.001). In second-line, median OS was not reached with ICIs versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy+placebo (HR=0.12, 95 %CI=0.07-0.22, P < 0.001), and 16.3 months with chemotherapy+targeted therapy (HR=0.10, 95 %CI=0.05-0.19, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: ICIs demonstrates high effect size for MSI mCRC patients in second-line and later. This work might be useful as an example of methodology to avoid RCTs when benefit from experimental therapy is likely to be high., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Romain Cohen reports honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exeliom Biosciences, Enterome Bioscience, MSD Oncology, Mylan Medical, Pierre Fabre, Servier and non-financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mylan Medical and Servier. Benoist Chibaudel reports consulting and advisory role from Amgen, Bayer, Beigine, Biocartis, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Revolution Medicines, Roche, SeqOne, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda. Josep Tabernero reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna Inc, 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. Stocks: Oniria Therapeutics and also educational collaboration with Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). Qian Shi reports consulting/advisory role from Yiviva Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Kronos Bio, and Mirati Therapeutics Inc; Honorarium/speaker role from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (to myself), research funds from Celgene/BMS, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis (to institution). Thierry Andre reports attending advisory board meetings and receiving consulting fees from Abbvie, Astellas, Aptitude Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Nordic Oncology, Seagen, Servier, Takeda and Transgène and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen and Servier; and support for meetings from Merck & Co. Inc. and Servier. Hideaki Bando reports research fund from Ono pharmaceutical, and honoraria from Ono pharmaceutical, Taiho pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly Japan. Michael J. Overman reports Consulting: Merck, Pfizer, Array, Gritstone, 3DMed, Nouscom, Atreca, Bayer, Simcere and Research Funding: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Merck, Medimmune, BMS, Nouscom, Phanes. John Zalcberg reports leadership from ICON Group, Lipotek, PRAXIS; Stock from Biomarin, Ophthea, Amarin, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Frequency Therapeutics, Gilead, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, UniQure, Zogenix, Orphazyme, Moderna Therapeutics, TWST, Novavax, Teladoc; Honoraria from Gilead Sciences, MSD Oncology, Viatris; Consulting & Advisory Role from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Specialized Therapeutics, CEND, Deciphera, REVOLUTION MEDICINE, FivePHusion, Genorbio, 1Global, Novatech, Alloplex Biotherapeutics Inc, Oncology Republic; Research Funding from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, IQvia, Mylan, Ipsen, Eisai, Medtronic, MSD Oncology, Servier; Travel from MSD Oncology, ICON Group, PRAXIS. Eric Van Cutsem repors participation to advisory boards for Abbvie, ALX, Amgen, Array, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, GSK, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Takeda, Terumo, Taiho, Zymeworks; research grants from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Servier paid to his institution. Takayuki Yoshino reports honoraria from Chugai Pharma, Takeda Pharma, Merck, Bayer Yakuhin, Ono Pharmaceutical and MSD K.K; consulting fee from Sumitomo Corp.; research grant from Amgen, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, FALCO Biosystems, Genomedia Inc., Molecular Health, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Sysmex and Taiho. Richard Adams reports Speaker fees/travel from Servier, Takeda, Amgen; Consultancy from Takeda, Seagen, Bayer; Institutional research funding from AZ, Jazz Pharma, MSD. Toshihiro Misumi reports Honoraria from Chugai, AstraZeneca, and Miyarisan. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although V600E accounts for the majority of the BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), non-V600 BRAF variants have been shown in recent years to represent a distinct molecular subtype. This study provides a comprehensive profile of BRAF variants in mCRC using a large genomic database of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and analyzing clinical outcomes in a cohort of patients with atypical (non-V600) BRAF variants ( aBRAF ; class II, class III, unclassified). Overall, 1733 out of 14,742 mCRC patients in the ctDNA cohort had at least one BRAF variant. Patients with atypical BRAF variants tended to be younger and male. In contrast to BRAF V600E , BRAF class II and III variants and their co-occurrence with KRAS / NRAS mutations were increased at baseline and especially with those patients predicted to have prior anti-EGFR exposure. Our clinical cohort included 38 patients with atypical BRAF mCRC treated at a large academic referral center. While there were no survival differences between atypical BRAF classes, concurrent RAS mutations or liver involvement was associated with poorer prognosis. Notably, patients younger than 50 years of age had extremely poor survival. In these patients, the high-frequency KRAS / NRAS co-mutation and its correlation with poorer prognosis underlines the urgent need for novel therapeutic strategies. This study represents one of the most comprehensive characterizations to date of atypical BRAF variants, utilizing both ctDNA and clinical cohorts.

Importance: Serum tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) have been useful in the management of gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers; however, there is limited information regarding their utility in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Objective: To assess the association of serum tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA125) with clinical outcomes and pathologic and molecular features in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 52 (21-101) months. Software was used to query the MD Anderson internal patient database to identify patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma and at least 1 tumor marker measured at MD Anderson between March 2016 and May 2023. Data were analyzed from January to December 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of serum tumor markers with survival in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were also performed to assess associations between clinical factors (serum tumor marker levels, demographics, and patient and disease characteristics) and patient outcomes (overall survival)., Results: A total of 1338 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were included, with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 56.5 (22.3-89.6) years. The majority of the patients had metastatic disease (1080 patients [80.7%]). CEA was elevated in 742 of the patients tested (56%), while CA19-9 and CA125 were elevated in 381 patients (34%) and 312 patients (27%), respectively. Individually, elevation of CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were associated with worse 5-year survival; elevated vs normal was 81% vs 95% for CEA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6), 84% vs 92% for CA19-9 (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4), and 69% vs 93% for CA125 (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.7-7.8) (P < .001 for all). Quantitative evaluation of tumor markers was associated with outcomes. Patients with highly elevated (top 10th percentile) CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 had markedly worse survival, with 5-year survival rates of 59% for CEA (HR, 9.8; 95% CI, 5.3-18.0), 64% for CA19-9 (HR, 6.0; 95% CI, 3.0-11.7), and 57% for CA125 (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 3.5-16.5) (P < .001 for all). Although metastatic tumors had higher levels of all tumor markers, when restricting survival analysis to 1080 patients with metastatic disease, elevated CEA, CA19-9, or CA125 were all still associated worse survival (HR for CEA, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.8; P < .001; HR for CA19-9, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7; P = .002; and HR for CA125, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.4; P < .001). Interestingly, tumor grade was not associated with CEA or CA19-9 level, while CA-125 was slightly higher in high-grade tumors relative to low-grade tumors (mean value, 18.3 vs 15.0; difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.9-3.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified an incremental increase in the risk of death with an increase in the number of elevated tumor markers, with an 11-fold increased risk of death in patients with all 3 tumor markers elevated relative to those with none elevated. Somatic mutations in KRAS and GNAS were associated with significantly higher levels of CEA and CA19-9., Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective study of serum tumor markers in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma, CEA, CA19-9, and CA125 were associated with overall survival in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Given their value, all 3 biomarkers should be included in the initial workup of patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Background: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy has shown efficacy in metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors. Our preclinical work demonstrated more robust CD8 predominant TIL production when agonistic anti-4-1BB and CD3 antibodies were used in early ex vivo TIL culture., Methods: Patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PDAC) and ovarian (OVCA) cancers were eligible. Lymphodepleting chemotherapy was followed by infusion of ex vivo expanded TIL, manufactured at MD Anderson Cancer Center with IL-2 and agonistic stimulation of CD3 and 4-1BB (urelumab). Patients received up to six doses of high-dose IL-2 after TIL infusion. Primary endpoint was evaluation of objective response rate at 12 weeks using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 with secondary endpoints including disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: 17 patients underwent TIL harvest and 16 were treated on protocol (NCT03610490), including 8 CRC, 5 PDAC, and 3 OVCA patients. Median age was 57.5 (range 33-70) and 50% were females. Median number of lines of prior therapy was 2 (range 1-8). No responses were observed at 12 weeks. Ten subjects achieved at least one stable disease (SD) assessment for a DCR of 62.5% (95% CI 35.4% to 84.8%). Best response included prolonged SD in a patient with PDAC lasting 17 months. Median PFS and OS across cohorts were 2.53 months (95% CI 1.54 to 4.11) and 18.86 months (95% CI 4.86 to NR), respectively. Grade 3 or higher toxicities attributable to therapy were seen in 14 subjects (87.5%; 95% CI 61.7% to 98.4%). Infusion product analysis showed the presence of effector memory cells with high expression of CD39 irrespective of tumor type and low expression of checkpoint markers., Conclusions: TIL manufactured with assistance of 4-1BB and CD3 agonism is feasible and treatment is associated with no new safety signals. While no responses were observed, a significant portion of patients achieved SD suggesting early/partial immunological effect. Further research is required to identify factors associated with resistance and functionally enhance T cells for a more effective therapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RA has consulting or advisory roles with Novartis, Erasca, and Iovance and receives institutional research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Roche, Novartis, OnKure, Iovance and Obsidian. MJO has consulting or advisory role with Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Gritstone Bio, MedImmune, Novartis, Promega, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Array BioPharma, Janssen, Pfizer, 3D Medicines, Merck, Eisai and research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, MedImmune, Phanes Therapeutics. C-WDT is a consultant for PanTher Therapeutics and receives research funding from SirTex. AJ has received institutional research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Iovance, Merck, Pfizer, Aravive, Macrogenics, AstraZeneca, Imunon, Avenge Bio, Greenfire Bio, and Break Through Cancer. He has received consulting fees from Guidepoint, Alkermes, Gerson Lehrman Group, Adicet Bio, Theolytics, Avenge Bio, and Greenfire Bio. CB received research funding from Iovance Biotherapeutics and Obsidian Therapeutics, and reports consulting or advisory roles with Myst Therapeutics and Turnstone Biologics. CB, M-AF and DS-T are now currently employees of the Cell Therapy Manufacturing Center (CTMC), Houston, Texas, USA, a joint venture between MD Anderson Cancer Center and Resilience. CLH reports receiving funding to institution from Avenge Bio, Dragonfly, BTG, Sanofi, Obsidian and Iovance; stock options from Briacell as an SAB member; travel support/honoraria from the Hope Foundation and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer outside the scope of the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Many patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma experience peritoneal recurrence despite complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Prior work has demonstrated that repeat CRS/HIPEC can prolong survival in select patients. We sought to validate these findings using outcomes from a high-volume center., Patients and Methods: Patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma who underwent CRS/HIPEC at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2004 and 2021 were stratified by whether they underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease or as part of initial treatment. Only patients who underwent complete CRS/HIPEC were included. Initial and recurrent groups were compared., Results: Of 437 CRS/HIPECs performed for mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, 50 (11.4%) were for recurrent disease. Patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease were more often treated with an oxaliplatin or cisplatin perfusion (35%/44% recurrent vs. 4%/1% initial, p < 0.001), had a longer operative time (median 629 min recurrent vs. 511 min initial, p = 0.002), and had a lower median length of stay (10 days repeat vs. 13 days initial, p < 0.001). Thirty-day complication and 90-day mortality rates did not differ between groups. Both cohorts enjoyed comparable recurrence free survival (p = 0.82). Compared with patients with recurrence treated with systemic chemotherapy alone, this select cohort of patients undergoing repeat CRS/HIPEC enjoyed better overall survival (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In appropriately selected patients with recurrent appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma, CRS/HIPEC can provide survival benefit equivalent to primary CRS/HIPEC and that may be superior to that conferred by systemic therapy alone in select patients. These patients should receive care at a high-volume center in the context of a multidisciplinary team., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors improve survival in patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer. The recurrence outcomes following discontinuation of immunotherapy after prolonged disease control have not been definitively reported in large series. Records from patients with advanced MSI-H colorectal cancer from The University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center who received immunotherapy between 2014 and 2022 and stopped after prolonged clinical benefit were reviewed. Median progression-free and overall survival were estimated. Associations between the event of recurrence and coexisting mutations (KRAS/NRAS, BRAFV600E), metastatic organ involvement (lung, liver, lymph node, or peritoneum), metastatic timing (synchronous vs. metachronous), prior immunotherapy [anti-PD-(L)1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA antibodies], etiology of MSI status (sporadic vs. hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer), and duration of immunotherapy were assessed. Sixty-four patients with MSI-H colorectal cancer without progression on immunotherapy were reviewed. Of these 48 and 16 received anti-PD(L)1 antibody alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 antibody, respectively. Median exposure to immunotherapy was 17.6 months (range, 1.3-51.9). After a median follow-up of 22.6 months (range, 0.3-71.7) after stopping immunotherapy, 56 of 64 patients (88%) remained without disease progression. Lung metastases were associated with recurrence/progression (OR, 6.1; P = 0.04), but coexisting mutation, primary tumor sidedness, and immunotherapy were not. These data provide a retrospective, single-institution analysis that showed that most patients with advanced MSI-H colorectal cancer do not recur after treatment cessation, regardless of the reason for stopping treatment or a variety of patient and disease features, supporting an optimistic prognosis of sustained disease control., Significance: Outcomes for patients with MSI-H colorectal cancer stopping immunotherapy after disease control remain unknown. Sixty-four patients with MSI-H colorectal cancer from our institution stopping treatment for sustained benefit or toxicity were retrospectively assessed. After median follow up of 22 months and median immunotherapy exposure of 18 months, 88% patients remained without progression. All patients who recurred or progressed and were rechallenged with immunotherapy have continued to experience disease control., (© 2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

The standard for cancer staging in the United States for all cancer sites, including primary carcinomas of the appendix, is the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. AJCC staging criteria undergo periodic revisions, led by a panel of site-specific experts, to maintain contemporary staging definitions through the evaluation of new evidence. Since its last revision, the AJCC has restructured its processes to include prospectively collected data because large data sets have become increasingly robust and available over time. Thus survival analyses using AJCC eighth edition staging criteria were used to inform stage group revisions in the version 9 AJCC staging system, including appendiceal cancer. Although the current AJCC staging definitions were maintained for appendiceal cancer, incorporating survival analysis into the version 9 staging system provided unique insight into the clinical challenges in staging rare malignancies. This article highlights the critical clinical components of the now published version 9 AJCC staging system for appendix cancer, which (1) justified the separation of three different histologies (non-mucinous, mucinous, signet-ring cell) in terms of prognostic variance, (2) demonstrated the clinical implications and challenges in staging heterogeneous and rare tumors, and (3) emphasized the influence of data limitations on survival analysis for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms., (© 2023 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade (IO) is emerging as a therapeutic option for patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) given high pathological response rates. The aim of the study was to characterise imaging and endoscopic response to IO., Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients with localised dMMR CRC that received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy was conducted. Endoscopy, imaging, and pathological outcomes were reviewed to determine response to treatment according to standardised criteria., Results: Thirty-eight patients had received IO for the treatment of localised CRC (median eight cycles). Among evaluable cases (n = 31 for endoscopy and n = 34 for imaging), the best endoscopic response was complete response (CR) in 45% of cases, and the best radiographic response was CR in 23% of cases. Imaging CR rate after ≤4 cycles of IO (n = 1) was 6% compared to 44% after >4 IO cycles (n = 7). Among 28 patients with imaging and endoscopy available, a discrepancy in best response was noted in 15 (54%) cases. At a median follow-up of 28.2 months from IO start, 18 patients underwent surgical resection of which 11 (61%) had pathological CR (pCR). Despite pCR or no evidence of progression ≥6 months after completion of IO among non-operatively managed patients, 72% and 42% of patients had non-CR on imaging and endoscopy, respectively., Conclusions: Discrepancies between imaging and endoscopy are prevalent, and irregularities identified on these modalities can be identified despite pathological remission. Improved clinical response criteria are warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Tsuyoshi Konishi: travel, accommodations, expenses – advent health; Michener Institute of Education at UHN. Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav: Honoraria - Bayer; Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca; Eisai; Merck; Seagen. Consulting or advisory role – Bayer; Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca; Eisai; Merck; Seagen. Research funding – Abbvie (Inst); Abbvie (Inst); Bayer (Inst); Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Guardant Health (Inst); HiberCell (Inst); Innovent Biologics (Inst); Janssen (Inst); Merck Serono (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); UCB (Inst); Xencor (Inst). Phillip S. Ge: consulting or advisory role – Alira Health; Boston Scientific; Neptune Medical; Ovesco Endoscopy. Benny Johnson: consulting or advisory role – Gritstone Bio; Incyte; Insmed; Pfizer; Taiho Oncology. Research funding – Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Gateway Foundation (Inst); Syntrix Biosystems (Inst). Van K. Morris: consulting or advisory role – Axiom Healthcare Strategies; Bicara Therapeutics; BioMedical Insights; Boehringer Ingelheim; Incyte. Research funding – Bicara Therapeutics (Inst); BioNTech (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); EMD Serono (Inst); Immatics; Pfizer (Inst). Scott Kopetz: stock and other ownership interests – Frontier Medicines; Iylon; Lutris; Navire; Xilis. Consulting or advisory role – Abbvie; Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina; Amal Therapeutics; Amgen; Astra Zeneca/MedImmune; Bayer Health; Bicara Therapeutics; Black Diamond Therapeutics; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex; Cardiff Oncology; Carina Biotech; CureTeq; EMD Serono; Endeavor BioMedicines; Flame Biosciences; Foundation Medicine; Frontier Medicines; Genentech; Genomic Health; Gilead Sciences; GlaxoSmithKline; HalioDx; Harbinger Oncology, Inc; Holy Stone Healthcare; Inivata; Ipsen; Iylon; Jacobio; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Johnson & Johnson/Janssen; Lilly; Lutris; Merck; Mirati Therapeutics; NeoGenomics Laboratories; Novartis; Numab; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer; Redx Pharma; Repare Therapeutics; Replimune; Servier; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Takeda; Tempus; Xilis; Zentalis. Research funding – Amgen; Array BioPharma; Biocartis; Daiichi Sankyo; EMD Serono; Genentech/Roche; Guardant Health; Lilly; MedImmune; Novartis; Sanofi. George J. Chang: consulting or advisory role – Medicaroid. Kaysia Ludford: research funding – Merck (Inst). Michael J. Overman: consulting or advisory role – 3D Medicines; Array BioPharma; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eisai; Gritstone Bio; Janssen; Janssen; MedImmune; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Pfizer; Promega; Roche/Genentech; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals. Research funding – Bristol-Myers Squibb; MedImmune; Merck; Roche. The remining authors do not have any disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We pooled data from 2 cohorts of immune checkpoint inhibitors-treated microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer patients to evaluate the prognostic value of RAS/BRAFV600E mutations and Lynch syndrome (LS)., Patients and Methods: Patients were defined as LS-linked if germline mutation was detected and as sporadic if loss of MLH1/PMS2 expression with BRAFV600E mutation and/or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, or biallelic somatic MMR genes mutations were found. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were adjusted on prognostic modifiers selected on unadjusted analysis (P < .2) if limited number of events., Results: Of 466 included patients, 305 (65.4%) and 161 (34.5%) received, respectively, anti-PD1 alone and anti-PD1+anti-CTLA4 in the total population, 111 (24.0%) were treated in first-line; 129 (28.8%) were BRAFV600E-mutated and 153 (32.8%) RAS-mutated. Median follow-up was 20.9 months. In adjusted analysis of the whole population (PFS/OS events = 186/133), no associations with PFS and OS were observed for BRAFV600E-mutated (PFS HR= 1.20, P = .372; OS HR = 1.06, P = .811) and RAS-mutated patients (PFS HR = 0.93, P = .712, OS HR = 0.75, P = .202). In adjusted analysis in the Lynch/sporadic status-assigned population (n = 242; PFS/OS events = 80/54), LS-liked patients had an improved PFS compared to sporadic cases (HR = 0.49, P = .036). The adjusted HR for OS was 0.56 with no significance (P = .143). No adjustment on BRAFV600E mutation was done due to collinearity., Conclusion: In this cohort, RAS/BRAFV600E mutations were not associated with survival while LS conferred an improved PFS., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: In metastatic colorectal cancer, the detection of RAS mutations by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a valid and noninvasive alternative approach to determining RAS status. However, some RAS mutations may be missed, that is, false negatives can occur, possibly compromising important treatment decisions. We propose a statistical model to assess the probability of false negatives when performing ctDNA testing for RAS., Methods: Cohorts of 172 subjects with tissue and multipanel ctDNA testing from MD Anderson Cancer Center and 146 subjects from Massachusetts General Hospital were collected. We developed a Bayesian model that uses observed frequencies of reference mutations (the maximum of APC and TP53 ) to provide information about the probability of KRAS false negatives. The model was alternatively trained on one cohort and tested on the other. All data were collected on Guardant assays., Results: The model suggests that negative KRAS findings are believable when the maximum of APC and TP53 frequencies is at least 8% (corresponding posterior probability of false negative <5%). Validation studies demonstrated the ability of our tool to discriminate between false-negative and true-negative subjects. Simulations further confirmed the utility of the proposed approach., Conclusion: We suggest clinicians use the tool to more precisely quantify KRAS false-negative ctDNA results when at least one of the reference mutations ( APC , TP53 ) is observed; usage may be especially important for subjects with a maximum reference frequency of <8%. Extension of the methodology to predict false negatives of other genes is possible. Additional reference genes can also be considered. Use of personal training data sets is supported. An open-source R Shiny application is available for public use.

Real-world evidence regarding the value of integrating genomic profiling (GP) in managing cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is limited. We assessed this clinical utility using a prospective trial of 158 patients with CUP (October 2016-September 2019) who underwent GP using next-generation sequencing designed to identify genomic alterations (GAs). Only 61 (38.6%) patients had sufficient tissue for successful profiling. GAs were seen in 55 (90.2%) patients of which GAs with US Food and Drug Administration-approved genomically matched therapy were seen in 25 (40.9%) patients. A change in therapy was recommended and implemented (primary endpoint of the study) in 16 (10.1%) and 4 (2.5%) patients of the entire study cohort, respectively. The most common reason for inability to implement the profiling-guided therapy was worsening of performance status (56.3%). Integrating GP in management of CUP is feasible but challenging because of paucity of tissue and aggressive natural history of the disease and requires innovative precision strategies., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Purpose: Although electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are efficacious in symptom management, much is unknown about the utility of vital signs surveillance. We examined the feasibility of a remote patient monitoring platform that integrates ePROs and biometrics into the ambulatory management of symptom burden., Methods: Using a decentralized workflow, patients with gastrointestinal or thoracic cancer were approached for a 1-month study. Patients reported symptom burden via ePROs and biometrics (blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse, weight, and temperature) using bluetooth-enabled devices daily. Alerts on the basis of prespecified thresholds were managed via nurse-led triage. Adherence was defined as the completion of > 70% of daily symptom and biometric reporting requirements. Pilot acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were measured using validated instruments. Net promoter score, system usability scale, and emergency department (ED) admission rates were collected., Results: Over 8 months, 36 patients were enrolled and 25 (60% gastrointestinal) completed the study. Participants had a mean age of 58.0 years, mean Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0.88, were 52% female, and predominantly had stage IV or recurrent disease (72%). Program adherence was 73% and associated with high acceptability (4.63), feasibility (4.56), and appropriateness (4.46). System usability scale and net promoter score scores were 88 and 55, respectively. Seventy percent of alerts were generated by biometrics, 28% for symptoms, and 2% were patient-initiated communication. Finally, the ED visitation rate over the pilot period was 8%., Conclusion: Our remote patient monitoring pilot program was highly acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. It had high rates of patient adherence and satisfaction and was associated with low ED visitation rates.

Importance: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma is a rare tumor, and given the inherent difficulties in performing prospective trials in such a rare disease, there are currently minimal high-quality data to guide treatment decisions, highlighting the need for more preclinical and clinical investigation for this disease., Objective: To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of fluoropyrimidine-based systemic chemotherapy in patients with inoperable low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma., Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized crossover trial recruited patients at a single tertiary care comprehensive cancer center from September 2013 to January 2021. The data collection cutoff was May 2022. Enrollment of up to 30 patients was planned. Eligible patients had histological evidence of a metastatic low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, with radiographic imaging demonstrating the presence of mucinous peritoneal carcinomatosis and were not considered candidates for complete cytoreductive surgery. Key exclusion criteria were concurrent or recent investigational therapy, evidence of bowel obstruction, and use of total parenteral nutrition. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to May 2022., Interventions: Patients were randomized to either 6 months observation followed by 6 months of chemotherapy, or initial chemotherapy followed by observation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the percentage difference in tumor growth in treatment and observation groups. Key secondary end points included patient-reported outcomes in the chemotherapy and observation periods, objective response rate, rate of bowel complications, and differences in overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 24 patients were enrolled, with median (range) age of 63 (38 to 82) years, and equal proportion of men and women (eg, 12 men [50%]); all patients had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. A total of 11 patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy first, and 13 patients were randomized to receive observation first. Most patients (15 patients [63%]) were treated with either fluorouracil or capecitabine as single agent; 3 patients (13%) received doublet chemotherapy (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin or folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan hydrochloride), and bevacizumab was added to cytotoxic chemotherapy for 5 patients (21%). Fifteen patients were available to evaluate the primary end point of difference in tumor growth during treatment and observation periods. Tumor growth while receiving chemotherapy increased 8.4% (95% CI, 1.5% to 15.3%) from baseline but was not significantly different than tumor growth during observation (4.0%; 95% CI, -0.1% to 8.0%; P = .26). Of 18 patients who received any chemotherapy, none had an objective response (14 patients [77.8%] had stable disease; 4 patients [22.2%] had progressive disease). Median (range) OS was 53.2 (8.1 to 95.5) months, and there was no significant difference in OS between the observation-first group (76.0 [8.6 to 95.5] months) and the treatment-first group (53.2 [8.1 to 64.1] months; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.16-2.55; P = .48). Patient-reported quality-of-life metrics identified that during treatment, patients experienced significantly worse fatigue (mean [SD] score, 18.5 [18.6] vs 28.9 [21.3]; P = .02), peripheral neuropathy (mean [SD] score, 6.67 [12.28] vs 38.89 [34.88]; P = .01), and financial difficulty (mean [SD] score, 8.9 [15.2] vs 28.9 [33.0]; P = .001) compared with during observation., Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective randomized crossover trial of systemic chemotherapy in patients with low-grade mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, patients did not derive clinical benefit from fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, given there were no objective responses, no difference in OS when treatment was delayed 6 months, and no difference in the rate of tumor growth while receiving chemotherapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01946854.

Objective: To evaluate the association of perioperative ctDNA dynamics on outcomes after hepatectomy for CLM., Summary Background Data: Prognostication is imprecise for patients undergoing hepatectomy for CLM, and ctDNA is a promising biomarker. However, clinical implications of perioperative ctDNA dynamics are not well established., Methods: Patients underwent curative-intent hepatectomy after preoperative chemotherapy for CLM (2013-2017) with paired prehepatectomy/postoperative ctDNA analyses via plasma-only assay. Positivity was determined using a proprietary variant classifier. Primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Median follow-up was 55 months., Results: Forty-eight patients were included. ctDNA was detected before and after surgery (ctDNA+/+) in 14 (29%), before but not after surgery (ctDNA+/-) in 19 (40%), and not at all (ctDNA-/-) in 11 (23%). Adverse tissue somatic mutations were detected in TP53 (n = 26; 54%), RAS (n = 23; 48%), SMAD4 (n = 5; 10%), FBXW7 (n = 3; 6%), and BRAF (n = 2; 4%). ctDNA+/+ was associated with worse RFS (median: ctDNA+/+, 6.0 months; ctDNA+/-, not reached; ctDNA-/-, 33.0 months; P = 0.001). Compared to ctDNA+/+, ctDNA+/- was associated with improved RFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.58)] and overall survival [HR 0.24 (95% CI 0.08-0.74)]. Adverse somatic mutations were not associated with survival. After adjustment for prehepatectomy chemotherapy, synchronous disease, and ≥2 CLM, ctDNA+/- and ctDNA-/- were independently associated with improved RFS compared to ctDNA+/+ (ctDNA+/-: HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.53; ctDNA-/-: HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.56)., Conclusions: Perioperative ctDNA dynamics are associated with survival, identify patients with high recurrence risk, and may be used to guide treatment decisions and surveillance after hepatectomy for patients with CLM., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Primary end point (PEP) changes to an active clinical trial raise questions regarding trial quality and the risk of outcome reporting bias. It is unknown how the frequency and transparency of the reported changes depend on reporting method and whether the PEP changes are associated with trial positivity (ie, the trial met the prespecified statistical threshold for PEP positivity)., Objectives: To assess the frequency of reported PEP changes in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and whether these changes are associated with trial positivity., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data for complete oncology phase 3 RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through February 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was change between the initial PEP and the final reported PEP, assessed using 3 methods: (1) history of tracked changes on ClinicalTrials.gov, (2) self-reported changes noted in the article, and (3) changes reported within the protocol, including all available protocol documents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether PEP changes were associated with US Food and Drug Administration approval or trial positivity., Results: Of 755 included trials, 145 (19.2%) had PEP changes found by at least 1 of the 3 detection methods. Of the 145 trials with PEP changes, 102 (70.3%) did not have PEP changes disclosed within the manuscript. There was significant variability in rates of PEP detection by each method (χ2 = 72.1; P < .001). Across all methods, PEP changes were detected at higher rates when multiple versions of the protocol (47 of 148 [31.8%]) were available compared with 1 version (22 of 134 [16.4%]) or no protocol (76 of 473 [16.1%]) (χ2 = 18.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PEP changes were associated with trial positivity (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.82; P = .003)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study revealed substantial rates of PEP changes among active RCTs; PEP changes were markedly underreported in published articles and mostly occurred after reported study completion dates. Significant discrepancies in the rate of detected PEP changes call into question the role of increased protocol transparency and completeness in identifying key changes occurring in active trials.

Work in computational psychiatry suggests that mood disorders may stem from aberrant reinforcement learning processes. Specifically, it has been proposed that depressed individuals believe that negative events are more informative than positive events, resulting in higher learning rates from negative outcomes (Pulcu and Browning, 2019). In this proof-of-concept study, we investigated whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as commonly used in depression treatment trials, might change learning rates for affective outcomes. Healthy adults completed an established reinforcement learning task (Pulcu and Browning, 2017) in which the information content of reward and loss outcomes was manipulated by varying the volatility of stimulus-outcome associations. Learning rates on the tasks were quantified using computational models. Stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) but not motor cortex (M1) increased learning rates specifically for reward outcomes. The effects of prefrontal tDCS were cognitive state-dependent: tDCS applied during task performance increased learning rates for wins; tDCS applied before task performance decreased both win and loss learning rates. A replication study confirmed the key finding that tDCS to DLPFC during task performance increased learning rates specifically for rewards. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the potential of tDCS for modulating computational parameters of reinforcement learning that are relevant to mood disorders., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Pembrolizumab significantly improves clinical outcomes in advanced/metastatic microsatellite instability high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) solid tumors but is not well studied in the neoadjuvant space., Methods: This is a phase II open-label, single-center trial of localized unresectable or high-risk resectable MSI-H/dMMR tumors. Treatment is pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks for 6 months followed by surgical resection with an option to continue therapy for 1 year followed by observation. To continue on study, patients are required to have radiographic or clinical benefit. The coprimary end points are safety and pathologic complete response. Key secondary end points are response rate and organ-sparing at one year for patients who declined surgery. Exploratory analyses include interrogation of the tumor immune microenvironment using imaging mass cytometry., Results: A total of 35 patients were enrolled, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer and eight patients with noncolorectal cancer. Among 33 evaluable patients, best overall response rate was 82%. Among 17 (49%) patients who underwent surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 65%. Ten patients elected to receive one year of pembrolizumab followed by surveillance without surgical resection (median follow-up of 23 weeks [range, 0-54 weeks]). An additional eight did not undergo surgical resection and received less than 1 year of pembrolizumab. During the study course of the trial and subsequent follow-up, progression events were seen in six patients (four of whom underwent salvage surgery). There were no new safety signals. Spatial immune profiling with imaging mass cytometry noted a significantly closer proximity between granulocytic cells and cytotoxic T cells in patients with progressive events compared with those without progression., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in dMMR/MSI-H cancers is safe and resulted in high rates of pathologic, radiographic, and endoscopic response, which has implications for organ-sparing strategies.

Purpose: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations., Methods: The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations., Results: The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer ., Recommendations: Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as a novel class of anticancer therapy, can be more efficacious and less toxic than chemotherapy, but their clinical success is confined to certain tumor types. Elucidating their targets, mechanisms and scope of action, and potential synergism with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapies are critical to widen their clinical indications. Treatment response to an ICI targeting programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) is sought to be understood here by conducting a preplanned correlative analysis of a phase II clinical trial in patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). The cytolytic capacity of circulating immune cells in cancer patients using a novel ex vivo cytotoxicity assay is evaluated, and the utility of circulating biomarkers is investigated to predict and monitor the treatment effect of anti-PD-1. Baseline expression of Bim and NKG7 and upregulation of CX3CR1 in circulating T cells are associated with the clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 in patients with SBA. Overall, these findings suggest that the frequency and cytolytic capacity of circulating, effector immune cells may differentiate clinical response to ICIs, providing a strong rationale to support immune monitoring using patient peripheral blood., (© 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

Introduction: Appendiceal neoplasms have a propensity for peritoneal dissemination. The standard of care for select individuals is CRS/HIPEC. In the current 8 th AJCC Staging system, a finding of only intraperitoneal acellular mucin (M1a) is classified as Stage IVa. There is concern that the current AJCC system may over-stage patients., Methods: This was a single-institution retrospective review of 164 cases of mucinous appendiceal neoplasm. Patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC with M1a disease were compared to patients with peritoneal deposits containing tumor cells (well-differentiated adenocarcinoma; low-grade mucinous carcinoma peritonei-M1b,G1). Overall and recurrence-free survival were assessed., Results: Median age was 51 years, 70% were female, and 75% White. Sixty-four patients had M1a disease and 100 M1b,G1 disease. M1a disease had a lower median PCI score (11 vs. 20, p = .0001) and a higher rate of complete CRS (62% vs. 50%, p = .021). Median follow-up was 7.6 years (IQR 5.6-10.5 years). For M1a disease, there were no recurrences and only one patient died during the study interval. In comparison, for M1b disease, 66/100 (66%) recurred with a 5-year RFS of 40.5% (HR 8.0, 95% CI 4.9-15.1, p < .0001), and 31/100 (31%) died with a 5-year OS of 84.8% (HR 4.5, 95% CI 2.2-9.2, p < .0001)., Conclusions: Acellular mucin (M1a disease) after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal neoplasm is associated with longer OS and RFS compared to M1b, G1 disease. Current AJCC staging does not accurately reflect the differing outcomes of these two patient populations. The presence of acellular mucin in the peritoneal cavity should not be perceived as a metastatic equivalent., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Over the past two decades of successive clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), the median overall survival of both control and experimental arms has steadily improved. However, the incremental change in survival for metastatic CRC patients not treated on trial has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective review of 1420 patients with de novo metastatic CRC who received their primary treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) from 2004 through 2019. Median OS was roughly stable for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2012 (22.6 months) but since has steadily improved for those diagnosed in 2013 to 2015 (28.8 months), and 2016 to 2019 (32.4 months). Likewise, 5-year survival rate has increased from 15.7% for patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2006 to 26% for those diagnosed from 2013 to 2015. Notably, survival improved for patients with BRAF V600E mutant as well as microsatellite unstable (MSI-H) tumors. Multivariate regression analysis identified surgical resection of liver metastasis (HR = 0.26, 95% CI, 0.19-0.37), use of immunotherapy (HR = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.67) and use of third line chemotherapy (regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil, HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58-0.95), but not year of diagnosis (HR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98-1), as associated with better survival, suggesting that increased use of these therapies are the drivers of the observed improvement in survival., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In a recent issue of Cancer Cell, Amodio and colleagues report an interesting method of modulating immunosurveillance in colorectal tumors with DNA mismatch repair (MMR) heterogeneity. 1 By pharmacologically enriching the MMR deficient (MMRd) component using 6-thioguanine, they demonstrate improved tumor control in murine models., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M.J.O. has management/advisory or consulting relationships with Simcere Pharmaceutical, Gritstone, Phanes Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Merck, Glaxosmithkline, Nouscom, Tempus, Roche, and Bayer., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a tremendous activity in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but a consistent fraction of patients does not respond. Prognostic/predictive markers are needed. Despite previous investigations in other tumor types, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have not been well evaluated in patients with MSI-H cancers treated with ICIs., Methods: We conducted an international cohort study at tertiary cancer centers collecting clinic-pathological features from 331 patients with MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs. Of note, the irAEs were summarized using a 'burden score' constructed in a way that the same score value could be obtained by cumulating many low-grade irAEs or few high-grade irAEs; as a result, the lower the burden the better. Clearly, the irAE burden is not a baseline information, thus it was modeled as a time-dependent variable in univariable and multivariable Cox models., Results: Among 331 patients, irAEs were reported in 144 (43.5%) patients. After a median follow-up time of 29.7 months, patients with higher burden of skin, endocrine and musculoskeletal irAEs (the latter two's effect was confirmed at multivariable analysis) had longer overall survival (OS), as opposed to gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, liver, renal and other irAEs, which showed an harmful effect. Similar results were observed for progression-free survival (PFS). Based on the results retrieved from organ-specific irAEs, 'aggregated' burden scores were developed to distinguish 'protective' (endocrine and musculoskeletal) and 'harmful' (gastrointestinal, pneumonitis, neurological, hepatic) irAEs showing prognostic effects on OS and PFS., Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all irAEs could exert a protective effect on oncologic outcome. An easy-to-use model for ICIs toxicity (burden score of protective and harmful irAEs) may be used as surrogate marker of response., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LS: Speakers’ and consultant’s fees from MSD, Astra-Zeneca, Servier, Bayer, Merck, Amgen, Pierre-FabreMJO: Consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, Glaxosmithkline, 3D Medicine, Nouscom, Roche. Research fees from Roche, Takeda, Merck, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, Nouscom. FP: Honoraria: Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Amgen, Pierre-Fabre, Merck-Serono, BMS. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck-Serono, Amgen, Servier, MSD Oncology, Organon. Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Incyte. All other authors declare no specific conflicts of interest(s)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has improved outcomes for patients with microsatellite instability high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors. However, not all MSI-H/dMMR patients will exhibit the same ICB efficacy. Previous studies suggest that concomitant antibiotic use while receiving ICB may result in poorer outcomes. We aimed to evaluate this association in patients with MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Materials and Methods: A single-site, retrospective review of 57 patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC that received ICB was completed. Data collected included patient demographics, ICB information, and antibiotic use. Antibiotic exposure was considered from 90 days prior to ICB through 6 weeks after initiation. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR)., Results: The majority of patients received pembrolizumab (27 [47%]) or nivolumab (17 [30%]) monotherapy as their ICB agent. Of the 57 patients, 19 (33.3%) had antibiotic exposure from 90 days prior to ICB initiation through 6 weeks after initiation with most (13 [68%]) having antibiotic use in the 30 days preceding ICB initiation. Similar ORRs were seen in both groups (P-value > .99). No difference was observed in OS (P-value .29) or PFS (P-value .36) between groups., Conclusion: Our data show no association of lower response rates or survival in those MSI-H/dMMR patients with mCRC who receive antibiotics around the initiation of ICB. This information needs to be confirmed in a larger prospective cohort., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Importance: The potential relationship between obesity and colorectal cancer (CRC) outcome is poorly understood in patients with late-stage disease. Increased body mass index may negate aspirin use for cancer prevention, but its role as a factor on the effectiveness of postdiagnosis aspirin use is unclear., Objective: To evaluate how prediagnosis obesity and postdiagnosis aspirin use may be associated with overall survival in patients with late-stage colorectal cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used self-reported data from patients with metastatic or treatment-refractory disease who consented to a clinical protocol at MD Anderson Cancer Center, a large US cancer treatment center. Patients were enrolled between 2010 and 2018 and followed up for mortality through July 2020. Analyses were conducted through March 2022., Exposures: Body mass index in the decade prior to initial diagnosis and regular aspirin use at survey completion., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival was measured from stage IV diagnosis until death or last follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to estimate associations of prediagnosis obesity and postdiagnosis aspirin use with overall survival., Results: Of 656 patients included in this analysis, 280 (42.7%) were women, 135 (20.6%) were diagnosed with CRC before age 45 years, 414 (63.1%) were diagnosed between ages 45 and 65 years, and 107 (16.3%) were diagnosed at 65 years or older; 105 patients (16.0%) were Black or Hispanic, and 501 (76.4%) were non-Hispanic White. Controlling for age, sex, race, stage at initial diagnosis, and weight change between prediagnosis and survey date, patients with obesity in the decade prior to CRC diagnosis had significantly higher likelihood of death (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.11-1.91) compared with those with normal prediagnosis body mass index. Furthermore, only patients with normal prediagnosis body mass index experienced significant survival benefit with postdiagnosis aspirin use (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.90)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, our findings suggest potentially differential tumor development in the long-term physiologic host environment of obesity. Confirmation and further evaluation are needed to determine whether prediagnosis body mass index may be used to estimate the benefit from postdiagnosis aspirin use.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Background: In the phase II multicohort CheckMate 142 study, nivolumab plus low-dose (1 mg/kg) ipilimumab provided robust and durable clinical benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) at 13.4- and 25.4-month median follow-up (Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:773-779. Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM, et al. Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in previously treated patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:635). Here, we present results from the 4-year follow-up of these patients., Patients and Methods: Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus low-dose (1 mg/kg) ipilimumab every 3 weeks (four doses) followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks until disease progression. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; as per RECIST version 1.1)., Results: A total of 119 patients were treated; 76% had ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Median follow-up was 50.9 months (range 46.9-62.7 months). Median duration of therapy was 24.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-33.2 months]. Investigator-assessed ORR increased from 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) at 13.4 months to 65% (95% CI 55% to 73%) at 50.9 months with a disease control rate of 81% (95% CI 72% to 87%). The complete response rate increased from 3% at 13.4 months to 13% at 50.9 months. Partial responses were observed in 52% of patients; 21% had stable disease, and 12% had progressive disease. Median time to response was 2.8 months (range 1.1-37.1 months), and median duration of response was not reached (range 1.4+ to 58.0+ months). At data cut-off, 37 (48%) patients had ongoing responses. Median progression-free survival was not reached [95% CI 38.4 months-not estimable (NE)], and median overall survival was not reached (95% CI NE). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in 32% of patients; 13% of patients had any-grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation., Conclusions: The results confirm long-term benefit of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab for previously treated patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. The safety profile was manageable with no new safety signals., Competing Interests: Disclosure TA reports support for the present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; consulting roles for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Servier; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Pierre Fabre, Roche/Ventana, Sanofi, and Servier; travel/meetings funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche; and participation in advisory boards for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Haliodx, Kaleido Biosciences, Merck & Co., Pierre Fabre, and Servier. SL reports research funding from Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; honoraria from Roche, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, and Amgen; and participation in advisory boards for Amgen, Merck Serono, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. KYMW reports consulting roles for Merck & Co., Novartis, Ipsen, and Sirtex. FG reports honoraria for speaker/advisory roles from Servier, Eli Lilly, IQVIA, Merck Serono, Amgen, and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the present work. HJL reports consulting roles for Bayer, Merck & Co., Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, Oncocyte, Fulgent, Jazz Therapeutics, and 3T Bioscience. MAM reports support for the present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; grants from Merck & Co. and Amal; and honoraria from Genentech/Roche. EVC reports participation in advisory boards for AbbVie, Array, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Halozyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen Research, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sirtex, Terumo, Taiho, TRIGR, and Zymeworks; and research grants from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Ipsen, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Servier, paid to his institution. RMD reports personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer and Janssen; grants from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck; grants and personal fees from Bayer; non-financial support from Celgene; and personal fees from Clovis. MBS reports support for the present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb; grants from AstraZeneca, Alberta Cancer Foundation, Alberta Health Services Strategic Network (Seed Grant Competition), Rexahn, Eli Lilly, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Celgene; consulting fees from Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck & Co.; honoraria from Mylan, Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; support for meetings and travel from Novartis; and holds a patent (number 61/406,856). BN reports support for the present manuscript from Bristol Myers Squibb. SA reports owning stocks and being an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. AM and MD report being employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. ML reports being an employee of, owning stock in, and being an inventor of patents filed/owned by Bristol Myers Squibb. SK reports consulting or advisory role from Genentech, Merck, Amal Therpeutics, Holy Stone, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Biomedical, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer Health, Pierre Fabre, EMD Serono, Redx Pharma, Jacobio, Natera, Repare Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Lutris, Pfizer, Ipsen, HalioDx, Inivata, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, Xilis, AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Mirati Therapeutics, Flame Biosciences, Servier, Carina Biotechnology, Bicara Therapeutics, Endeavor BioMedicines, Numab Pharma, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Genomic Health, Frontier Medicines, Replimune, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; research funding from Sanofi, Biocartis, Guardant Health, Array BioPharma, Genentech/Roche, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo; and stock and other ownership interests from MolecularMatch, Lutris, Iylon, and Frontier Medicines. MJO reports consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Agilvax, Takeda, Acrotech Biopharma, and Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing BMS policy on data sharing can be found at https://www.bms.com/researchers-and-partners/independent-research/data-sharing-request-process.html., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)