Philip, Philip

Abstract Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Furthermore, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with <80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Observational studies have associated aspirin or cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitor usage either before or after colorectal cancer diagnosis with lower risk of recurrence and suggest that PIK3CA mutational status is predictive of better response to COX-2 inhibition. To prospectively test whether adding the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib to standard adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk of recurrence and improves survival, the National Cancer Institute sponsored the CALGB/SWOG 80702 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01150045 ) for patients with stage III resected colon cancer. Although the primary hypothesis for all patients did not show a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) with celecoxib, subgroup analysis by PIK3CA mutational status was a preplanned study. PIK3CA gain-of-function mutations were detected in 259 of 1,197 tumors with available whole-exome sequencing data. When stratified by PIK3CA status, patients with PIK3CA gain-of-function mutations treated with celecoxib exhibited improved DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.96]) compared with PIK3CA wildtype patients (adjusted HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.14]), although the interaction test was nonsignificant ( Pinteraction = .13). Overall survival was similarly improved for patients with PIK3CA gain-of-function mutations (adjusted HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.85]) compared with PIK3CA wildtype patients (adjusted HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.30]; Pinteraction = .04). Although the test for heterogeneity in DFS did not reach statistical significance, the results suggest potential utility of PIK3CA to consider selective usage of COX-2 inhibitors in addition to standard treatment for stage III colon cancer.