Rone, Kelley

The recent approval of encorafenib, cetuximab, and FOLFOX based on the phase III BREAKWATER trial has introduced a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of BRAF V600E–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, its safety and efficacy in patients with significant liver dysfunction remains unclear and, as such, patients are often excluded from pivotal clinical trials. This report presents a case of BRAF V600E–mutated mCRC presenting with extensive hepatic involvement and liver dysfunction. Despite the absence of guidelines, the patient was initiated on full-dose encorafenib, cetuximab, and FOLFOX. He experienced a rapid clinical and biochemical response, with near-normalization of liver enzymes after cycle 1, and complete functional recovery by cycle 3. Treatment was well tolerated, with no significant adverse events throughout 9 cycles. He subsequently transitioned to maintenance 5-FU, cetuximab, and encorafenib. Posttreatment blood-based next-generation sequencing revealed no residual actionable mutations. The patient then successfully underwent complete surgical resection of his primary tumor and metastatic disease with negative margins. This case highlights the importance of considering encorafenib-based therapy in select patients with BRAF V600E–mutated mCRC in the setting of compromised liver function.

PURPOSE Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancers—including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and gallbladder cancer—are aggressive malignancies with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. The emergence of personalized liquid biopsy technologies, particularly bespoke circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), offers new opportunities for improving clinical management. Traditional methods like imaging and tumor markers may miss early recurrence or evolving disease. This study explores the real-world application of ctDNA in HPB cancers, focusing on its use for surveillance, diagnostic clarification, treatment monitoring, and recurrence detection. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the use of a personalized ctDNA assay (Signatera, Natera) in 54 patients with HPB cancers at a single academic cancer center. The cohort included PDAC (22/54), HCC (11/54), and CCA (21/54). ctDNA was assessed longitudinally for surveillance, treatment monitoring, or diagnostic clarification. Concordance with imaging and tumor markers, as well as lead time to recurrence detection, was descriptively analyzed. RESULTS ctDNA was evaluable in 37/54 patients (84.6%), with ctDNA positivity in 22/37 (59.5%). Success rates by tumor type were 16/22 (72.7%) in PDAC, 10/11 (90.9%) in HCC, and 11/21 (52.4%) in CCA. ctDNA concordance with imaging was observed in 69/85 assessments (72.6%) and with tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 or alpha fetoprotein) in 39/95 (41%). Clinical applications included disease surveillance (21/54, 38.9%), treatment monitoring (24/54, 44.4%), and diagnostic clarification (16/54, 29.6%). In patients with recurrence, ctDNA detected disease before imaging in several cases, with a median lead time of 28 days (range, 1 month to 7 months). CONCLUSION Personalized ctDNA testing demonstrated meaningful utility across HPB cancers, enabling early recurrence detection and guiding clinical decision making as a complementary tool in multidisciplinary care.

92 Background: Since the publication of the MOSAIC trial, stage III CC has been treated with a six-month (mo) regimen of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin). Recently, the IDEA collaboration challenged this practice by demonstrating that the 3-year rate of disease-free survival (DFS) was non-inferior to 6mo of treatment (Rx) when given for low risk CC (83.1 vs. 83.3%) and resulted in significantly lower rates of grade 2 and higher neuropathy. In high risk (T4, N2) patients (pts) the DFS of 3mo of CAPOX was equivocal to 6mo (64.1 vs. 64.0%), while 3mo of FOLFOX was inferior to 6mo (61.5 vs. 64.7%). We hypothesized that trends in prescribing would favor shorter courses of Rx with a preference towards CAPOX given its efficacy across both high and low risk CC. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of stage III CC pts from 4 institutions. We evaluated prescribing patterns of 3mo or 6mo of Rx and CAPOX vs. FOLFOX over a period of 5 years from Jan 2016 to Jan 2021, a time period that traverses before and after the release of IDEA. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression models, with a linear time trend, were used to estimate the percentage of pts receiving CAPOX vs. FOLFOX and the combination of Rx and duration, respectively, while adjusting for baseline characteristics. The prescribing patterns in important subgroups were examined by incorporating the interaction term in the models. Results: A total of 366 pts met inclusion criteria. From 2016-2021, there was a significant increase per quarter in patients treated with CAPOX when compared to FOLFOX (OR 1.16 95% CI 1.11 – 1.21, p <.001). Prior to IDEA, 78.3% of pts received 6mo FOLFOX and 7.4% received 3mo CAPOX. Two years after IDEA, only 17.3% of pts were on 6mo FOLFOX compared to 67.5% of pts on 3mo CAPOX (Table). At present, high risk pts are more likely to receive 6mo FOLFOX (47.8%) than 3mo of FOLFOX (3.9%), 3mo CAPOX (25.8%), or 6mo CAPOX (22.4%). Low risk pts are more likely to receive 3mo of CAPOX (67.9%) than other Rx. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that since IDEA, physician practice has significantly changed in favor of CAPOX and shorter courses of Rx. The use of CAPOX has significantly increased overall, presumably due to its efficacy across all risk groups and relatively reduced toxicity.[Table: see text]

612 Background: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on survival in neuroendocrine tumor and the impact of neuroendocrine tumor on glycemic control in DM. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed neuroendocrine tumor with and without DM were matched 1:1 according to age, gender, and year of cancer diagnosis (2005-2017). The file was linked to the electronic medical record to obtain information on DM and neuroendocrine tumor therapies and laboratory results. There were 59 matched pairs (total 118 patients) included in the analysis. We compared characteristics between cases and controls and assessed survival with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Mixed models compared hemoglobin A1c and glucose levels over time. Results: Median age of patients at diagnosis was 67 (40-86); 41% had stage IV disease. Women constituted 49% of the study population; 22% had pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and 45% had another GI primary neuroendocrine tumor. No differences in race/ethnicity, marital status, alcohol or tobacco use were detected between cancer patients with and without DM. Mean BMI was significantly different between DM and non-DM patients (31.0 [7.90] versus 26.4 [5.27]); p = 0.011. Among those with DM, mean HbA1c during the year following cancer diagnosis was 7.3%. Mean glucose was significantly different between DM (159.1 [43.5] versus non-DM pts 117 [31.5]); p < 0.001. Median follow-up time was 32.8 (2.4-165.4) months in alive patients. Three year survival was estimated at 72% (95% CI: 60-86%) for DM patients versus 80% (95% CI: 70-92%) in non-DM patients by Kaplan Meier method (p = 0.82 log rank test). Hazard ratio (stratification for matched pairs) = 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56 – 3.16; p = 0.51). Conclusions: DM did not adversely impact survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumor. Neuroendocrine tumor and its treatment did not affect glycemic control. This should be reassuring to oncologists and endocrinologists who treat patients with neuroendocrine tumors and diabetes.