Bekaii-Saab, Tanios S

Abstract Although the last two decades have seen a broad improvement in overall survival, colorectal cancer is still the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Patient populations continue to face poor disease prognoses due to the challenges of early detection and the molecular subtypes driving their colorectal cancer. Consequently, many patients present with metastatic colorectal cancer, which often limits options and shifts treatment focus away from curative interventions. BRAFV600E mutations are present in approximately 10% of colorectal cancer tumors and are associated with uninhibited cell proliferation, reduced apoptosis, and resistance to standard therapeutic options. In colorectal cancer, BRAFV600E mutations are associated with decreased overall survival, poor treatment responses, and different patterns of metastatic spread compared with tumors with wild-type BRAF. Success in treating other BRAFV600E-mutant cancers with BRAF inhibitors as monotherapy has not translated into efficacious treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Consequently, combination therapy with inhibitors of BRAF, MEK, and EGFR, which overcomes the innate treatment-resistant characteristics of BRAFV600E-mutant colorectal cancer, is now recommended by treatment guidelines.

Abstract Purpose: The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is critical to the development of colorectal cancers, and KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations foster resistance to radiation. We performed a phase I trial to determine the safety of trametinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor, with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients and Methods: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled on a phase I study with 3+3 study design, with an expansion cohort of 9 patients at the MTD. Following a 5-day trametinib lead-in, with pre- and posttreatment tumor biopsies, patients received trametinib and CRT, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Trametinib was given orally daily at 3 dose levels: 0.5 mg, 1 mg, and 2 mg. CRT consisted of infusional 5-FU 225 mg/m2/day and radiation dose of 28 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy (total 50.4 Gy). The primary endpoint was to identify the MTD and recommended phase II dose. IHC staining for phosphorylated ERK (pERK) and genomic profiling was performed on the tumor samples. Results: Patients were enrolled to all dose levels, and 18 patients were evaluable for toxicities and responses. Treatment was well tolerated, and there was one dose-limiting toxicity of diarrhea, which was attributed to CRT rather than trametinib. At the 2 mg dose level, 25% had pathologic complete response. IHC staining confirmed dose-dependent decrease in pERK with increasing trametinib doses. Conclusions: The combination of trametinib with 5-FU CRT is safe and well tolerated, and may warrant additional study in a phase II trial, perhaps in a RAS/RAF-mutant selected population.

Objectives Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) is a topoisomerase inhibitor proven to improve survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). This study describes real-world characteristics of patients treated with nal-IRI for mPC. Methods Patients 18 years or older diagnosed with stage IV mPC and treated with nal-IRI were selected retrospectively from a deidentified electronic health record database of more than 2 million US cancer patients. Demographics, clinical and dosing characteristics, and treatment outcomes were collected. Results Of 257 total patients, 145 (57%) received nal-IRI as first- or second-line therapy. Median nal-IRI treatment duration was 51 days, longer when nal-IRI was used as first/second versus as third-line therapy or later (62 vs 44.5 days). Seventy patients (27.2%) experienced dose modification. Median time to treatment discontinuation was 2.3 versus 1.6 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Median overall survival from nal-IRI initiation was 5.6 versus 4.1 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Prior irinotecan treatment, baseline serum albumin less than 40 g/L, and baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 5 were associated with reduced overall survival. Conclusions This is the first large US study of real-world US mPC patients treated with nal-IRI. These results, comparable to the NAPOLI-1 trial, can help inform future studies and the efficacy of nal-IRI in mPC therapy.

AbstractTrial InformationClick here to access other published clinical trials.Lessons LearnedTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy.BackgroundPatients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC.MethodsPatients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity.ResultsOf 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%–53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2–5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4–11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted.ConclusionFTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative decision-making for differentiating malignant from benign lesions in the gallbladder remains challenging. We aimed to create a diagnostic nomogram to identify gallbladder cancer (GBC), especially for incidental GBC (IGBC), before surgical resection. METHODS: A total of 587 consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed gallbladder lesions from a hospital were randomly assigned to a training cohort (70%) and an internal validation cohort (30%), with 287 patients from other centers as an external validation cohort. Radiological features were developed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model. Significant radiological features and independent clinical factors, identified by multivariate analyses, were used to construct a nomogram. RESULTS: A diagnostic nomogram was established by age, CA19.9, and 6 radiological features. The values of area under the curve in the internal and external validation cohorts were up to 0.91 and 0.89, respectively. The calibration curves for probability of GBC showed optimal agreement between nomogram prediction and actual observation. Compared with previous methods, it demonstrated superior sensitivity (91.5%) and accuracy (85.1%) in the diagnosis of GBC. The accuracy using the nomogram was significantly higher in GBC groups compared with that by radiologists in the training cohort ( P < 0.001) and similarly in each cohort. Notably, most of the IGBC, which were misdiagnosed as benign lesions, were successfully identified using this nomogram. DISCUSSION: A novel nomogram provides a powerful tool for detecting the presence of cancer in gallbladder masses, with an increase in accuracy and sensitivity. It demonstrates an unprecedented potential for IGBC identification.

Abstract Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Growing evidence supports gene fusions as good candidates for molecularly targeted therapy in CRC. Here we describe a case of a 63-year-old man who had a radical right hemicolectomy procedure 24 months ago. Pathological diagnosis indicated colorectal adenocarcinoma with stage pT4N2bMx. During re-examination in December 2016, positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans indicated relapse with multiple lymph nodes metastasis. Then the patient received a nine-cycle combination treatment of XELOX and bevacizumab and showed progressive disease (PD). Subsequently, the patient was treated with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI for 2 months before discontinuation because of adverse events. Paraffin sections of postoperative colorectal tissue were subjected to next-generation sequencing, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification and rare EGFR–SEPT14 fusion were identified. The patient then received erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and achieved a partial response. However, the patient subsequently showed PD, and a new variant, EGFRvIII, appeared in metastasis, which may be involved in erlotinib resistance. We suggest that there is value in treating patients harboring EGFR fusions with EGFR TKI therapy, and EGFR–SEPT14 fusion may be used as a therapeutic target for CRC. Key Points To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of EGFR–SEPT14 fusion in colorectal cancer. The patient achieved a partial response after treatment with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. This report expands the list of gene fusions in colorectal cancer and highlights new targets for the therapeutic intervention. EGFRvIII may be involved in erlotinib resistance, which is rare in colorectal cancer.

NAPOLI-1 (NCT01494506) was a phase III study of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. This post hoc analysis of NAPOLI-1 aimed to develop a predictive nomogram for overall survival (OS) at 6 and 12 months. Analyses were derived from all patients in NAPOLI-1 randomized to receive nal-IRI+5-FU/LV, nal-IRI monotherapy, or 5-FU/LV combination therapy. OS was associated with baseline factors using univariate and multivariable Cox analyses. A predictive nomogram was derived and validated using a concordance index and calibration plots. The univariate analyses identified 21 independent factors that contributed to OS, with eight factors significantly associated with OS. The Karnofsky Performance Score contributed the largest number of points (100), followed by presence of liver metastasis (98) and randomization to nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (96). The other baseline factors showing effects were albumin (g/dL), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (U/mL), disease stage at diagnosis, and body mass index (kg/m2). The nomogram was used to predict the 6- and 12-month survival probability. The mean absolute errors between the observed and predicted probabilities for OS at 3, 6, and 9 months were 0.07, 0.08, and 0.07, respectively. This nomogram, based on NAPOLI-1, provides additional insight to aid decision-making for patients with mPDAC after previous gemcitabine-based therapy.

Abstract Background Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. Materials and Methods We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (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 at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26–0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40–0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48–0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57–0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically 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, 0.23–0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21–0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160. Conclusion 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. Implications for Practice Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.