Ajani, Jaffer A

Gastric cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improve survival, and enhance the quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies have demonstrated encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Gastric Cancer highlights recommendations for biomarker testing and discusses updates for the treatment of advanced disease, including peritoneal carcinoma as only disease and unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

PURPOSE The outcomes of anti–PD-1 agents plus fluoropyrimidine/platinum in frontline advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (aGEAs) remain poor. We investigated the safety, tolerability, and activity of fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin and tislelizumab with the DKK1-neutralizing antibody DKN-01 in aGEAs in a phase IIa open-label study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients had untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative aGEAs, RECIST v1.1 measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, and adequate organ function. Patients received intravenous DKN-01 300 mg once every 2 weeks, tislelizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 once every 3 weeks, and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-15 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was safety and tolerability. Key secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by RECISTv1.1, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Between September 18, 2020, and April 8, 2021, 25 patients were enrolled. All patients who received at least one dose of DKN-01 were included in the safety analysis. Most patients had gastroesophageal junction tumors, median age was 61 years, 76% were male, and 55% were ECOG of 0. All patients reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The ORR was 73% (95% CI, 49.8 to 89.3), with a disease control rate of 95%. The ORR was 90% (95% CI, 55.5 to 99.7) in the DKK1-high tumor patients and 67% (95% CI, 29.9 to 92.5) in the DKK1-low tumor patients. The median PFS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 12.0) and the 12-month PFS rate was 33%. The median OS was 19.5 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 24.4) with a 12-month OS rate of 76% and an 18-month OS rate of 55%. CONCLUSION DKN-01 can be safely combined with frontline fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin and tislelizumab and demonstrates encouraging activity independent of PD-L1 expression levels. A randomized phase II trial is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04363801 ).

AbstractAlthough the development of effective combined chemoradiation regimens for esophageal cancers has resulted in statistically significant survival benefits, the majority of patients treated with curative intent develop locoregional and/or distant relapse. Further improvements in disease control and survival will require the development of individualized therapy based on the knowledge of host and tumor genomics and potentially harnessing the host immune system. Although there are a number of gene targets that are amplified and proteins that are overexpressed in esophageal cancers, attempts to target several of these have not proven successful in unselected patients. Herein, we review our current state of knowledge regarding the molecular pathways implicated in esophageal carcinoma, and the available agents for targeting these pathways that may rationally be combined with standard chemoradiation, with the hope that this commentary will guide future efforts of novel combinations of therapy.

Abstract Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.

Background and ObjectivesStaging laparoscopy is recommended before preoperative therapy in patients with locoregional gastric cancer, but yield of repeated diagnostic laparoscopy at the time of resection is unknown.MethodsRetrospective review of a prospective database of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (1994‐2016) who had negative staging laparoscopy followed by preoperative therapy and subsequent attempted resection. Primary outcome was positive exploration (peritoneal or unresectable disease) at the time of resection. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with positive exploration.ResultsOf the 451 patients with attempted resection, 54 (12.0%) had positive explorations, including 48 with peritoneal disease. Patients with positive explorations were more likely to be female and have poorly differentiated tumors, linitis features, and signet‐ring morphology. There was no significant difference by exploration results in age, race, clinical stage, or delayed definitive surgery. Positive explorations were independently associated with poor differentiation (OR 4.6, 95%CI 1.4‐15.3; P = 0.01) and linitis (OR 4.2, 95%CI 1.9‐9.2; P < 0.001). Positive explorations were seen in 14.0% of patients with poor differentiation, 36.6% of patients with linitis, and 5.8% of patients with neither linitis nor poor differentiation.ConclusionDespite negative pretreatment laparoscopy, post‐treatment repeat laparoscopy may prevent non‐therapeutic laparotomies. At a minimum, we recommend selective repeat laparoscopy for patients with linitis features.

Objective: To discern recurrence risk stratification and investigate its influence on postoperative surveillance in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Background: Reports documenting recurrence risk stratification in EAC after neoadjuvant CRT are scarce. Methods: Between 1998 and 2014, 601 patients with EAC who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy were included for analysis. The pattern, site, timing, and frequency of the first recurrence and potential prognostic factors for developing recurrences were analyzed. This cohort was used as the training set to propose a recurrence risk stratification system, and the stratification was further validated in another cohort of 172 patients. Results: A total of 150 patients (25.0%) achieved pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant CRT and the rest were defined as the non-pCR group (n = 451) in the training cohort. After a median follow-up of 63.6 months, the pCR group demonstrated a significantly lower locoregional (4.7% vs 19.1%) and distant recurrence rate (22.0% vs.44.6%) than the non-pCR group (P < 0.001). Based on independent prognostic factors, patients were stratified into 4 recurrence risk categories: pCR with clinical stage I/II, pCR with clinical stage III, non-pCR with pN0, and non-pCR with pN+, with corresponding 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of 88.7%, 65.8%, 55.3%, and 33.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The risk stratification was reproducible in the validation cohort. Conclusions: We proposed a recurrence risk stratification system for EAC patients based on pathologic response and pretreatment clinical stage. Risk-based postoperative surveillance strategies could be developed for different risk categories.

Abstract Purpose: Esophageal cancer is an aggressive malignancy and often resistant to therapy. Overexpression of EGFR has been associated with poor prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer. However, clinical trials using EGFR inhibitors have not provided benefit for patients with esophageal cancer. Failure of EGFR inhibition may be due to crosstalk with other oncogenic pathways. Experimental Design: In this study, expression of YAP1 and EGFR were examined in EAC-resistant tumor tissues versus sensitive tissues by IHC. Western blot analysis, immunofluorescence, real-time PCR, promoter analysis, site-directed mutagenesis, and in vitro and in vivo functional assays were performed to elucidate the YAP1-mediated EGFR expression and transcription and the relationship with chemoresistance in esophageal cancer. Results: We demonstrate that Hippo pathway coactivator YAP1 can induce EGFR expression and transcription in multiple cell systems. Both YAP1 and EGFR are overexpressed in resistant esophageal cancer tissues compared with sensitive esophageal cancer tissues. Furthermore, we found that YAP1 increases EGFR expression at the level of transcription requiring an intact TEAD-binding site in the EGFR promoter. Most importantly, exogenous induction of YAP1 induces resistance to 5-fluorouracil and docetaxcel, whereas knockdown of YAP1 sensitizes esophageal cancer cells to these cytotoxics. Verteporfin, a YAP1 inhibitor, effectively inhibits both YAP1 and EGFR expression and sensitizes cells to cytotoxics. Conclusions: Our data provide evidence that YAP1 upregulation of EGFR plays an important role in conferring therapy resistance in esophageal cancer cells. Targeting YAP1-EGFR axis may be more efficacious than targeting EGFR alone in esophageal cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 21(11); 2580–90. ©2015 AACR.