Bekaii‐Saab, Tanios

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are thought to be a distinct population of cells within a tumor mass that are capable of asymmetric division and known to have chemoresistant characteristics. The description and identification of CSC models in cancer growth and recurrence has inspired the design of novel treatment strategies to overcome treatment resistance by targeting both CSCs and non-CSC tumor cells. Several cellular signaling pathways have been described as playing a role in the induction and maintenance of stemness in CSCs, such as the Wnt/β-catenin, Notch, STAT3, and Hedgehog pathways. In this review, we aim to review some of the ongoing CSC therapeutic targeting strategies in gastrointestinal malignancies.

PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with resected biliary tract cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on adjuvant therapy for resected biliary tract cancer and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS Three phase III randomized controlled trials, one phase II trial, and 16 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on evidence from a phase III randomized controlled trial, patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a duration of 6 months. The dosing used in this trial is described in the qualifying statements, while it should be noted that the dose of capecitabine may also be determined by institutional and regional practices. Patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer and a microscopically positive surgical resection margin (R1 resection) may be offered chemoradiation therapy. A shared decision-making approach is recommended, considering the risk of harm and potential for benefit associated with radiation therapy for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Abstract Purpose: This first-in-human phase I study (NCT 01417546) evaluated the safety profile, optimal immunologic/biological dose (OID/OBD), and immunogenicity of the combination of two peptide B-cell epitope vaccines engineered to represent the trastuzumab- and pertuzumab-binding sites. Although trastuzumab and pertuzumab have been approved for clinical use, patients often develop resistance to these therapies. We have advanced a new paradigm in immunotherapy that focuses on humoral responses based on conformational B-cell epitope vaccines. Patients and Methods: The vaccine is comprised of two chimeric HER-2 B-cell peptide vaccines incorporating a “promiscuous T-cell epitope.” Patients were immunized with the vaccine constructs emulsified with nor-muramyl-dipeptide adjuvant in a water-in-oil Montanide ISA 720VG vehicle. Eligible patients with metastatic and/or recurrent solid tumors received three inoculations every 3 weeks. Results: Forty-nine patients with a median of 4 prior lines of chemotherapy received at least 1 vaccination. Twenty-eight patients completed the 3 vaccination regimens. Six patients received 1 six-month boost after the regimen, and one patient received 7 six-month boosts. No serious adverse reactions or dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The vaccine was well tolerated with dose level 2 as the recommended phase II dose. The most common related toxicity in all patients was injection-site reactions (24%). Two patients had a partial response, 14 had stable disease, and 19 had progressive disease. Conclusions: The study vaccine is safe, exhibits antitumor activity, and shows preliminary indication that peptide vaccination may avoid therapeutic resistance and offer a promising alternative to monoclonal antibody therapies.

TPS475 Background: The prognosis of pancreas adenocarcinoma (PCA) remains poor. A chemotherapy backbone is the current standard of care in PCA. The choice of a chemotherapeutic backbone may impact the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy in PCA. Ramucirumab has increased activity with fluoropyrimidines (5FU) because 5FU increases VEGF expression. Methods: This is a double-blind, placebo controlled Phase II study. Subjects will receive either Ramucirumab or a placebo followed by mFOLFIRINOX every two weeks of a 28 day cycle until progression or discontinuation for other reasons. The primary endpoint of this clinical trial is nine month PFS defined as the time from enrollment to the time of progression or death. Among the key inclusion criteria, subjects must have recurrent or metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma (PCA) with no prior first-line systemic treatment, ECOG PS 0-1, adequate organ function, no DVT, PE or other thromboembolism within three months of randomization. Total number of patient enrolled as of September 19, 2018 is 48 of 85 at eight sites; 27 male (56%), 42 Caucasians (87.5%), three African American (6.2%), one Asian (2%). Median age is 63 (40 - 76). Majority of patients (41) had de novo metastatic disease and six with recurrent disease after surgery. Regimen has been tolerated well with no unanticipated events. Clinical trial information: NCT02581215.

TPS462 Background: Dysregulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) signaling by FGFR genetic alterations is implicated in many cancers, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). FGFR2 translocations with fusion partners occur in ≈10% to 20% of intrahepatic CCA tumors. Pemigatinib is a selective oral inhibitor of FGFR-1, 2, 3. Preliminary data from the ongoing phase 2 study show efficacy and tolerable safety in patients (pts) with CCA with FGFR2 translocations. We present the design for a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial investigating pemigatinib monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of pts with advanced/metastatic or unresectable CCA with FGFR2 rearrangement. Methods: Eligible pts (target, N = 432) are ≥ 18 years (≥ 20 years for Japanese pts) and have ECOG performance status ≤ 1 and histologically confirmed advanced (locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent) CCA with a documented FGFR2 rearrangement. Key exclusion criteria include prior systemic therapy, excluding adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment completed ≥ 6 months before enrollment; current evidence of clinically significant corneal or retinal disorder; history of calcium and phosphate homeostasis disorder or systemic mineral imbalance with ectopic calcification of soft tissues; and known, untreated CNS metastases or history of uncontrolled seizures. Pts are randomized 1:1 and stratified by geographic region and tumor burden into 2 treatment groups: pemigatinib starting dose 13.5 mg once daily continuously on a 3-week cycle; or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle for up to 8 cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Crossover to pemigatinib may be allowed once progressive disease is confirmed. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (based on independent central review using RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints include overall response rate, overall survival, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and tolerability, and impact on quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT03656536.

619 Background: Regorafenib (at a starting dose of 160 mg/day, rego 160), regorafenib (with a weekly dose escalation, rego 80+) and TAS-102, are suggested treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these 3 strategies. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS 102 or regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients who progressed on/intolerant of previous oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included OS and PFS. The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White’s multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Results: Six trials (3 of regorafenib and 3 of TAS-102) at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to BSC in terms of PFS (Rego 160: HR = 0.4, CI 0.26 to 0.63; TAS-102: HR = 0.46, CI 0.40 to 0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR = 0.67, CI 0.48 to 0.93; TAS-102: HR = 0.67, CI 0.57 to 0.80). Network analysis showed that there was no difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR = 0.44, CI 0.23 to 0.84) and PFS (HR = 0.37, CI 0.21 to 0.66). There was a numerical advantage for Rego 80+ compared to TAS-102 and Rego 160 (see table). Conclusions: Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. [Table: see text]