Search

Background: Spontaneous regression (SR) of cancer remains a rare phenomenon, particularly in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), where limited literature exists. This case report emphasizes the significance of SR in advanced HCC, shedding light on the proposed mechanisms and addressing the scarcity of documented cases in current medical literature., Case Description: We present the case of a 67-year-old female with a history of localized HCC who underwent right hepatectomy. Surveillance imaging 4 months later revealed tumor recurrence with tumor thrombus in the main portal vein. Radioembolization was deemed unsuitable, leading to the recommendation of systemic therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Prior to receiving any treatment, the patient tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), having previously received both the messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 vaccine series and a booster. Surprisingly, subsequent imaging 10 months after initial diagnosis showed SR of the previously identified lesions, suggesting a potential link between viral exposure, vaccination, and the observed regression. The patient eventually received treatment with atezolizumab and bevacizumab and has sustained disease control to date, 12 months after initiating treatment., Conclusions: This unique case highlights SR of advanced HCC following COVID-19 infection, raising intriguing questions about the interplay between viral infections, vaccinations, and cancer outcomes. The patient's response in the absence of systemic therapy further underscores the complexity of HCC management and prompts further investigation into the potential immunomodulatory effects of viral infections and vaccinations on cancer regression. Understanding these interactions could have implications for tailoring treatment approaches and improving outcomes in patients with advanced HCC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jgo.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jgo-24-59/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pemigatinib is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3. FGFR is associated with increased cell division, proliferation, and survival. Inhibition of this receptor is an effective treatment against tumors driven by activated fusions in FGFR2., Areas Covered: The drug was first evaluated in patients with advanced solid tumors and demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with the most common adverse events being oscillations in blood phosphate levels, fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, and skin and ocular toxicities. Pemigatinib was further evaluated in a phase II cohort study of patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 genomic alterations. After a median follow-up of 17.8 months, the objective response rate in patients with tumors harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements was 35.5% (95% CI, 26.5-45.4). Based on these results, the FDA granted accelerated approval on 17 April 2020, to pemigatinib, for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion or another rearrangement. Articles selected for this review were based on reported studies indexed in PubMed (2010-2023)., Expert Opinion: Future perspectives in the treatment of FGFR2 fused cholangiocarcinoma include the evaluation of pemigatinib in previously untreated patients and possible active combinations or sequencing strategies with other drugs.

Background: Morreton virus (MORV) is an oncolytic Vesiculovirus , genetically distinct from vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)., Aim: To report that MORV induced potent cytopathic effects (CPEs) in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in vitro models., Approach and Results: In preliminary safety analyses, high intranasal doses (up to 10 10 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID 50 ]) of MORV were not associated with significant adverse effects in immune competent, non-tumor-bearing mice. MORV was shown to be efficacious in a Hep3B hepatocellular cancer xenograft model but not in a CCA xenograft HuCCT1 model. In an immune competent, syngeneic murine CCA model, single intratumoral treatments with MORV (1 × 10 7 TCID 50 ) triggered a robust antitumor immune response leading to substantial tumor regression and disease control at a dose 10-fold lower than VSV (1 × 10 8 TCID 50 ). MORV led to increased CD8 + cytotoxic T cells without compensatory increases in tumor-associated macrophages and granulocytic or monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells., Conclusions: Our findings indicate that wild-type MORV is safe and can induce potent tumor regression via immune-mediated and immune-independent mechanisms in HCC and CCA animal models without dose limiting adverse events. These data warrant further development and clinical translation of MORV as an oncolytic virotherapy platform., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM., Methods: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan., Conclusions: This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background and Aims: To determine prevalence and clinical utility of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in gastric and esophageal cancer patients using universal genetic testing approach., Methods: We undertook a prospective study of germline sequencing using an > 80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among patients with gastric and esophageal cancers receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected based on cancer stage, family history of cancer, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no cost., Results: A total of 96 patients were evaluated. Median age was 66 years, 80.2% were male, 89.6% were white. Nearly 39% of the cohort had esophageal cancer, 35.4% gastric cancer and 26% gastroesophageal junction cancers. Approximately half (52%) of the patients had metastatic disease. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were detected in 15.6% (n = 15) patients. The prevalence of PGV was 10.8% in esophageal cancer, 17.6% in gastric cancer and 20% in gastroesophageal cancer. Eighty percent of patients with a positive result would not have been detected by screening with standard guidelines for genetic testing. Most PGV detected included genes with high and moderate penetrance related to DNA damage response including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and ATM., Conclusions: Universal multi-gene panel testing in gastric and esophageal cancers was associated with detection of heritable mutations in 15% of patients. The majority of PGV would not be detected with current screening guidelines and are related to DNA damage response., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background & Aims: Hereditary factors play a role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC). Identification of germline predisposition can have implications on treatment and cancer prevention. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in CRC patients using a universal testing approach, association with clinical outcomes, and the uptake of family variant testing., Methods: We performed a prospective multisite study of germline sequencing using a more than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among CRC patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020., Results: Of 361 patients, the median age was 57 years (SD, 12.4 y), 43.5% were female, 82% were white, and 38.2% had stage IV disease. PGVs were found in 15.5% (n = 56) of patients, including 44 in moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Thirty-four (9.4%) patients had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by practice guideline criteria or a CRC-specific gene panel. Only younger age at diagnosis was associated with the presence of PGVs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.56). After a median follow-up period of 20.7 months, no differences in overall survival were seen between those with or without a PGV (P = .2). Eleven percent of patients had modifications in their treatment based on genetic findings. Family cascade testing was low (16%)., Conclusions: Universal multigene panel testing in CRC was associated with a modest, but significant, detection of heritable mutations over guideline-based testing. One in 10 patients had changes in their management based on test results. Uptake of cascade family testing was low, which is a concerning observation that warrants further study., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To report the prevalence and outcomes of unselected pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) detected using a universal testing approach., Methods: We undertook a prospective, multisite study of germline sequencing using a >80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among 250 patients with PC (not selected for age or family history of cancer) between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared between PGV carriers and noncarriers., Results: Of 250 patients, the mean age was 65 years (SD 8.7), 56% was male, 83.6% was White, and 65.6% had advanced disease (stages III and IV). PGVs were found in 15.2% (N = 38) of patients, and 2 patients had more than 1 PGV. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 44.4% (N = 111). Family history of cancer (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-5.19, P = 0.025) was associated with a higher risk of PGV. In a median follow-up of 16.5 months, the median overall survival was 16.8 months in PGV carriers compared with 16.5 months in noncarriers (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.01, P = 0.05). Higher levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and advanced disease stages (III and IV) were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Overall, 68% of PGV carriers had mutations in homologous recombination repair genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C., Discussion: Universal multigene panel testing in PC reveals that 1 in 6 patients are carriers of PGV. Multigene germline testing should be used to aid in treatment selection, prognostication, and familial cancer counseling., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Importance: Hereditary factors play a key role in the risk of developing several cancers. Identification of a germline predisposition can have important implications for treatment decisions, risk-reducing interventions, cancer screening, and germline testing., Objective: To examine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in patients with cancer using a universal testing approach compared with targeted testing based on clinical guidelines and the uptake of cascade family variant testing (FVT)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter cohort study assessed germline genetic alterations among patients with solid tumor cancer receiving care at Mayo Clinic cancer centers and a community practice between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected based on cancer type, disease stage, family history of cancer, ethnicity, or age., Exposures: Germline sequencing using a greater than 80-gene next-generation sequencing platform., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of PGVs detected with a universal strategy compared with a guideline-directed approach and uptake of cascade FVT in families., Results: A total of 2984 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [12.2] years; 1582 [53.0%] male) were studied. Pathogenic germline variants were found in 397 patients (13.3%), including 282 moderate- and high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 1415 patients (47.4%). A total of 192 patients (6.4%) had incremental clinically actionable findings that would not have been detected by phenotype or family history-based testing criteria. Of those with a high-penetrance PGV, 42 patients (28.2%) had modifications in their treatment based on the finding. Only younger age of diagnosis was associated with presence of PGV. Only 70 patients (17.6%) with PGVs had family members undergoing no-cost cascade FVT., Conclusions and Relevance: This prospective, multicenter cohort study found that universal multigene panel testing among patients with solid tumor cancer was associated with an increased detection of heritable variants over the predicted yield of targeted testing based on guidelines. Nearly 30% of patients with high-penetrance variants had modifications in their treatment. Uptake of cascade FVT was low despite being offered at no cost.

Purpose: NUC1031 is a first-in-class ProTide, that is a gemcitabine pro-drug designed to overcome putative mechanisms of resistance, including decreased expression of hENT/hCNT transporters, absence of activating enzymes such as deoxycytidine kinase (dCK) and presence of degrading enzymes such as cytidine deaminase (CDA). We undertook comprehensive pre-clinical evaluation of NUC1031 in biliary tract cancer (BTC) models, given that gemcitabine/cisplatin is a standard first-line therapy in advanced BTC., Methods: Here, we compared the in vitro activity of NUC1031 in comparison to gemcitabine, validate putative mechanism(s) of action, assessed potential biomarkers of sensitivity or resistance, and performed combination studies with cisplatin. We also evaluated the in vivo efficacy of NUC1031 and gemcitabine using a CDA-high cholangiocarcinoma patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model., Results: In a panel of BTC cell lines (N = 10), NUC1031 had less potency than gemcitabine in multiple cellular assays. NUC1031 did not demonstrate evidence of greater synergy over gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin. Surprisingly, efficacy of both gemcitabine and NUC1031 was not found to be correlated with hENT/hCTN, dCK or CDA transcript levels. Gemcitabine and NUC1031 showed equivalent efficacy in a CDA-high PDX model in vivo contradicting the primary rationale of NUC1031 design., Conclusion: NUC1031 did not exhibit evidence of superior activity over gemcitabine, as a single-agent, or in combination with cisplatin, in either our in vivo or in vitro BTC models. Given that the largest Phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0314666) to date in BTC is underway (N = 828) comparing NUC1031/cisplatin to gemcitabine/cisplatin, our results suggest that a more conservative clinical evaluation path would be more appropriate.