Ahn, Daniel H

Abstract Background Regorafenib and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies are standard therapies for RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the refractory setting, but the optimal sequencing remains unknown. Herein, we report results from REVERCE II, a randomized phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of sequencing these therapies. Methods Patients with RAS WT mCRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were randomized to receive (R-E) regorafenib followed by anti-EGFR therapy ± irinotecan or (E-R) anti-EGFR therapy ± irinotecan, followed by regorafenib sequentially. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) with initial (PFS1) and second treatment (PFS2), sequential treatment PFS (stPFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Exploratory endpoints included serial biomarker analyses. Unfortunately, the trial was closed prematurely due to slow enrollment and lack of funding. Results Twenty-two patients were enrolled (R-E: n = 12; E-R: n = 10) with sequential treatment initiated in 33% (4/12) and 80% (8/10) of patients in R-E and E-R, respectively. Median OS for R-E and E-R was 21.9 and 13.3 months, respectively (one-sided P = .114). PFS1 was 2.5 (R-E) vs 5.6 months (E-R) (one-sided P = .998), while PFS2 was 3.7 vs 2.0 months (one-sided P = .086). stPFS was similar (9.3 vs 9.6 months; one-sided P = .358). ORR for initial treatment was 0% in R-E and 20% (2/8) in E-R. Sequential treatment ORR was 25% (n = 1/4) in R-E and 0% in E-R. No significant differences were observed adverse effects between arms. Conclusion While the study was closed prematurely prior to completion, the sequence of regorafenib before to anti-EGFR therapy suggested a possible survival benefit. Further studies may help better determine the optimal treatment sequencing strategy in refractory mCRC.

Purpose: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are increasingly recognized to have a hereditary predilection, yet the prevalence and clinical relevance of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in unselected patients with NEN remain poorly defined. This prospective, multicenter study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical utility of PGVs through universal multigene panel testing in a diverse cohort of patients with NENs. Patients and Methods: Between 2018 and 2024, we enrolled unselected patients with NENs from 3 Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers. Germline genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel of up to 84 cancer predisposition genes. Patients were not selected based on age, disease stage, ethnicity, or family history. Variants were classified as PGVs, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or negative. Clinical and demographic data were analyzed descriptively. Results: Among 88 patients, PGVs were identified in 15.9% (n=14), most frequently in high- or moderate-penetrance genes including MEN1 , CHEK2 , MITF , and MUTYH . PGVs were most commonly found in pancreatic NENs [n=12/55 (21.8%)], followed by small bowel NENs [n=2/20 (10%)], with no PGVs detected in lung NENs. Mismatch repair (MMR) gene alterations were identified in 5.7% of patients, including 1 MLH1 PGV and 4 MSH2/MSH6 VUS, 2 of which demonstrated MMR deficiency by protein testing. VUS were reported in 34.1% of patients. Notably, 35.7% of PGV-positive patients did not meet current NCCN or ACMG testing criteria, and 53.9% had PGVs in genes outside of cancer-specific guideline recommendations. Conclusions: Universal germline testing in unselected patients with NEN identified clinically relevant PGVs in over 15% of cases. These findings support broader genetic testing approaches to guide treatment, enhance familial risk assessment, and inform cascade testing—regardless of traditional clinical selection criteria.

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.

PURPOSE Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is a key determinant of sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents; however, its genomic characterization in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains limited. This study investigated whether low RNA expression of homologous recombination (HR) genes identifies patients with metastatic CRC who derive survival benefit from oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based therapy. METHODS A total of 22,957 metastatic CRC samples were subjected to DNA and RNA sequencing (Caris Life Sciences, Dallas, TX). Patients with microsatellite instability–high or pathogenic HR gene mutations were excluded to define a HR-proficient cohort. Overall survival (OS) was compared between patients with low (bottom 25%) versus high (top 25%) RNA expression of HR genes after oxaliplatin or irinotecan exposure. Validation was performed in the PARADIGM phase III trial cohort (n = 262) of first-line modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin-treated patients with available RNAseq data. RESULTS In the discovery cohort, low expression of core HR genes correlated with significantly longer OS after oxaliplatin or irinotecan exposure, specifically RAD51 (43.0 v 36.3 months; P < .005) and BLM (42.9 v 34.2 months; P < .005). Similar associations were observed for RAD51 (28.1 v 22.9 months; P = .02) and BLM (29.1 v 23.2 months; P < .005) in irinotecan-treated patients. In the PARADIGM validation cohort, low BLM expression was associated with improved OS (41.5 v 22.4 months; HR = 0.52; P = .002), whereas RAD51 showed a favorable but nonsignificant trend. These findings remained significant after adjustment for treatment arm, tumor sidedness, and metastatic burden. CONCLUSION Low BLM RNA expression is associated with improved survival after treatment with DNA-damaging agents, whereas low RAD51 expression shows a favorable but nonsignificant trend. These findings are exploratory and suggest that RNA-based HR gene expression may warrant further investigation as a potential prognostic biomarker in metastatic CRC.

Abstract Background This phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of rucaparib (RUB), a poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) and 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. RUB targets DNA repair pathways, showing efficacy in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, such as BRCA mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy with irinotecan, but overlapping toxicities pose challenges. Methods Eighteen patients with metastatic GI cancers, who previously progressed on at least one systemic therapy, were enrolled. A novel sequential dosing regimen, informed by nal‐IRI pharmacokinetic analysis, was used. Twelve patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and 12 for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria. Results The MTD was established as RUB 600 mg twice daily, nal‐IRI 50 mg/m 2 , and 5‐FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours. The objective response rate (ORR) was 33% (4 of 12), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75% (9 of 12). Common grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and neutropenia (25%), with no grade 4/5 events. Responses were notable in patients with somatic ATM and BRCA mutations, especially those with prior platinum exposure. No DLTs occurred at the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions This optimized dosing schedule successfully established the MTD for RUB with nal‐IRI and 5‐FU, overcoming prior challenges with PARP inhibitor and irinotecan combinations. The promising ORR and DCR support further evaluation of this regimen in advanced GI malignancies.

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (nICIs) have demonstrated high response rates in deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability–high (dMMR/MSI-H) gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). The NEONIPIGA and INFINITY trials demonstrated high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in this patient population. Furthermore, the INFINITY trial explored the feasibility of managing these patients nonoperatively, demonstrating promising results. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of nICIs in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, with a focus on the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM). MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study included patients with resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA and treated with nICIs ± surgery at the Mayo Clinic. Patients were identified from institutional records, and clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes were clinical complete response (cCR) and pCR. Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), radiologic complete response (rCR), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RESULTS A total of 26 patients treated between April 1, 2017, and July 30, 2025, were identified. Nine patients (34.6%) underwent surgery, of whom six (66.7%) achieved pCR. Seventeen patients (65.4%) pursued NOM, with 10 (71.4%) of 14 evaluable patients achieving cCR and 14 (82.4%) of 17 evaluable achieving rCR. One patient who initially achieved cCR had a local recurrence on surveillance endoscopy and underwent salvage endoscopic resection. At a median follow-up of 19.3 months, 15 (88.2%) of 17 patients in the NOM cohort were alive and metastasis-free, with EFS rates of 87.3% at 12 and 24 months for all patients. irAEs occurred in nine patients (34.6%), with no grade ≥3 toxicities. CONCLUSION In this retrospective cohort study, nICIs led to high cCR and pCR rates in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, supporting the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting and the feasibility of NOM in select patients.

In a retrospective study of patients with Lynch syndrome vs non‐Lynch syndrome and microsatellite instability high colorectal cancer, there were no observed differences with immune checkpoint inhibitors toward progression‐free survival or overall survival. Univariate analysis of Stage IV patients showed BRAF V600E mutations were associated with decreased survival.

BACKGROUNDThere are limited therapeutic options for treatment‐refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a paucity of data to support the best option after progression on gemcitabine‐based regimens. The authors performed a meta‐analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) after first‐line treatment progression in patients with PDAC.METHODSDifferent databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy versus FP combination therapy that included either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in patients with PDAC who progressed after first‐line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared with FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS).RESULTSFive studies with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to receive FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS and a trend toward improved OS compared with those who received FP monotherapy. When comparing FPIRI with FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47‐0.87; P = .005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55‐0.89; P = .004) in patients who received the combination. Conversely, FPOX produced only a modest improvement in PFS with no improvement in OS.CONCLUSIONSCombination chemotherapy with OX or various IRI formulations appears to improve PFS compared with single‐agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX, appears to confer an OS advantage. The combination of FP with irinotecan formulations appears to be the appropriate next line of treatment upon progression after gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy regimens. Cancer 2017;123:4680‐4686. © 2017 American Cancer Society.