Jin, Zhaohui

Abstract Background Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is a leading cause of cancer death. FDA-approved first-line systemic therapies include atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and durvalumab/tremelimumab (durva/treme); however, there is a lack of comparative data. Methods We reviewed outcomes of patients with uHCC who initiated atezo/bev or durva/treme between 2017 and 2024, across six institutions. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier and Cox models, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Four hundred fifty-two uHCC pts were included. Median age: 68 years; 77% male; 81% white. Most common etiologies were viral hepatitis (38.9%) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (19.5%). Disease progression was the primary reason for treatment discontinuation, atezo/bev (56%) and durva/treme (42%). Outcomes were not statistically significant (median OS [month, m]: 14.0 vs 14.6 [P = .66]; median TTD [m]: 4.9 vs 3.9 [P = .42] for atezo/bev vs durva/treme). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A, B7, B8/9, C) respectively, median OS(m): 19.0, 6.1, 5.1, 2.0 (P < .001); median TTD(m): 6.1, 2.3, 3.0, 1.3 (P < .001). Conclusions In this real-world study of uHCC, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between atezo/bev and durva/treme in the first-line setting. CP scores were a key prognostic variable with both regimens.

This cross-sectional study analyzes patient-reported outcome findings from the Enhanced, Electronic Health Record–Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial to investigate level of symptom burden in adolescents and young adults with cancer.

PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (<50 years, named early-onset CRC [eoCRC]) has been increasing. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data on 13,365 patients with metastatic CRC enrolled between 2000 and 2012 in 17 first-line randomized trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive database were pooled. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathologic features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized and compared by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group on clinical outcomes was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables. RESULTS Overall, 2,045 patients with eoCRC (median age, 42.5) and 11,320 patients with average-onset CRC (aoCRC; median age, 63.8) were included in this analysis. Within the eoCRC population, treatment with bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy improved PFS (9.9 v 6.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.80]; P < .0001), which was similar to the findings in aoCRC population (9.4 v 7.3 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80]; P < .001; interaction P = .5415). However, epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) did not improve PFS in RAS wild-type (WT) patients with eoCRC who had left-sided primary tumors (8.3 v 8.9 months; HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.77]; P = .36), whereas EGFRi significantly improved PFS in the aoCRC population (9.9 v 8.5 months; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.86]; P < .0001; interaction P = .083). CONCLUSION Treatment-naïve patients with metastatic eoCRC appear to derive similar benefit from bevacizumab as patients with aoCRC. However, patients with eoCRC with left-sided RAS/RAF WT tumors did not appear to derive benefit from first-line EGFRi.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

3520 Background: Recent analyses highlight nonhierarchical outcomes using the 8 th Edition AJCC staging system for CC. For instance, the 5-year survival rate for stages I and IIIa patients (pts) closely align. Additionally, tumor deposits (TDs) have been established as significant prognostic indicators. The AJCCCCEP commissioned this study to develop an updated pathological staging system for CC focused specifically on pts without distant metastasis (M0), while retaining the existing stage IV classification. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) from pts diagnosed with cc (2010- 2017) in the NCDB were divided into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) datasets. External validation used IPD from clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Risk classification development for M0 pts incorporated ungrouped data on pathologic T categories, the number of involved regional lymph nodes (LN+), and TD counts. Recursive partitioning and regression tree analyses were applied to construct hierarchical staging levels. Pre-specified criteria required survival probabilities to be consecutive and show clear separations using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates with pairwise log-rank test P of < 0.005 for the training and < 0.05 for validation analyses. Results: Data from 281,997 pts (median age 67 years, 50% male, 81% white, 55% T3, 19% T4, 44% N+, 26% M+, and 11% with ≥1 TD) were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 7.3 years. The updated staging system (Table) met pre-specified criteria, with all observed pairwise P < 0.0001 in the development and internal validation sets. KM OS curves displayed a hierarchical separation across all sub-levels after the 1 st year of diagnosis. Consistent results were seen in pts treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in 4 trials (all pair-wise P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The proposed pathological staging system for M0 pts fulfills pre-specified criteria for hierarchical risk stratification, validated both internally and externally, and provides an evidence-based update. Pending review process, the AJCCCCEP will recommend that these changes be made to the Version 9 staging protocol for colon cancer to improve prognostication for CC pts. Stage T, # of LN+, # of TD M % of pts 1y OS (CI), % 3y OS (CI), % 5y OS (CI), % I T1, 0, 0 0 5 96 (95-97) 91 (90-92) 84 (83-86) IIa T2, 0, 0 0 10 95 (94-95) 88 (88-89) 80 (79-81) IIb T1, 0, 1+T1, 1+, 0T2, 0, 1+T2, 1-4, 0T3, 0, 0 0 27 93 (92-93) 84 (84-85) 75 (75-76) IIIa T1, 1+, 1+T2, 1-4, 1+T2, 5+, 0T3, 0, 1+T3, 1-4, 0 0 14 92 (91-92) 80 (80-81) 71 (70-72) IIIb T2, 5+, 1+T3, 1-4, 1+T3, 5+, 0T4a, 0-4, 0T4b, 0-2, 0 0 13 86 (86-87) 69 (68-70) 58 (57-59) IIIc T3, 5+, 1+T4a, 0-4, 1+T4a, 5+, anyT4b, 0-2, 1+T4b, 3+, any 0 5 78 (77-80) 53 (51-54) 40 (38-41) IVa Any 1a 19 59 (58-60) 28 (28-29) 17 (16-18) IVb Any 1b 7 43 (42-44) 14 (13-14) 6 (6-7) CI: 95% confidence internal; Peritoneum involvement data were not available before 2018 in NCDB. Thus, IVa/b were based on 7 th Edition.

e15682 Background: Small cell carcinoma (SCC) of gastrointestinal tract is a highly aggressive rare malignancy with an estimated prevalence of 0.1% to 1% of all GI neoplasms. Treatment and survival outcomes data are very limited. Here we present an analysis of outcomes of patients with intestinal SCC using data from the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database. Methods: SEER (2000-2020) was used to identify patients with SCC involving of the small intestine, colon and rectum. Variables included age, race, site, stage, chemotherapy (chemo), radiation therapy (RT) and surgery. Cox regression was used to model survival outcomes based on site, stage, and treatment received in the overall group and stage subgroups. Results: 1,169 patients with SCC of the small intestine, colon, and rectum were identified. Median age was 65 (24-90). 631 (54%) were male; majority of patients were white (989; 85%), followed by black (128; 11%) and other races (50; 4.3%). Colon (569; 49%) and rectum (514; 44%) were the predominant sites while small intestine only comprised 7.4% of the patients. Distant, regional and local diseases were reported in 55%, 17% and 7.5% of the patients. Median overall survival (mOS) of the entire group was 8 months (m). Primary tumor sites of small intestine and rectum were significantly associated with lower mortality rate in comparison to colon (11 m and 9 m vs 5 m, p < 0.001 for both). Patients with localized disease had the lowest mortality rate when compared with those with regional or distant metastatic diseases (38 m vs. 16 m and 5 m, p < 0.001 for both). Receiving surgery (HR: 0.458, p < 0.001), chemo (HR: 0.473, p < 0.001), and RT (HR: 0.733, p = 0.003) were all significantly associated with lower mortality rate (Table). These differences remained significant in each stage-based subgroup except for chemotherapy in localized disease subgroup, which encompassed only 87 patients. Conclusions: Intestinal SCC has poor prognosis, with SCC of the colon being most prevalent and with the highest mortality. Majority of patients presented with distant metastatic disease which led to high mortality. Multimodality treatment may improve survival for these patients. Number of cases (%) HR (CI) p-value mOS (months) vs reference Site (ref: colon) Rectum 514 (44%) 0.750 (0.648-0.867) <0.001 9 (ref: 5) Small intestine 86 (7.4%) 0.574 (0.44-0.749) <0.001 11 (ref: 5) Stage (ref: localized) Regional 201 (17%) 2.087 (1.507-2.891) <0.001 16 (ref: 38) Distant 639 (55%) 4.222 (3.110-5.733) <0.001 5 (ref: 38) Unknown/unstaged 242 (21%) 1.639 (1.160-2.315) 0.005 8 (ref: 38) Chemo (ref: none/unknown) Yes 590 (50%) 0.473 (0.404-0.553) <0.001 10 (ref:3) RT (ref: none/unknown) Yes 175 (15%) 0.733 (0.598-0.897) 0.003 12 (ref: 7) Surgery (ref: no surgery) Yes 363 (31%) 0.458 (0.385-0.546) <0.001 12 (ref: 6) Unknown 138 (12%) 0.717 (0.549-0.936) 0.01 7.5 (ref: 6)

Abstract Background Optimal treatment for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unclear due to limited head-to-head comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy of available multimodality treatment regimens in these patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched till September 20, 2024. Phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifteen trials (8072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P-score 91%), achieving significant improvements compared to surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF + nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P-score 90%) and pFLOT (P-score 87%) were the top regimens. pFLOT significantly outperformed surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72) and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Based on the limited data available, adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT (DFS: 1.10, 0.71-1.69; OS: 1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma, outperforming surgery alone, nCROSS, and alternative perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy requires further investigation to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

PURPOSE Limited treatment options exist for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Recently, several clinical trials provided preliminary evidence for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) as a new target for patients with HER2-expressing BTC. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analysis of the safety and efficacy of anti-HER2 agents in patients with advanced BTCs. METHODS A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify phase I, II, or III clinical trials published between January 2019 and March 2024 that evaluated anti-HER2 therapy in locally advanced or metastatic BTC. Participant data included in the analysis were from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of various anti-HER2 agents. The primary end points included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end points included incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), rate of treatment discontinuation, and death. RESULTS The analysis included 368 patients from eight publications diagnosed with advanced BTC. Patients were treated with several anti-HER2 agents including zanidatamab, pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, tucatinib plus trastuzumab, trastuzumab deruxtecan, trastuzumab plus chemotherapy, trastuzumab-pkrb plus chemotherapy, and neratinib. The pooled ORR and DCR were 34% (95% CI, 24 to 44) and 64% (95% CI, 51 to 77), respectively. The pooled weighted PFS and median overall survival were 4.8 and 9.4 months, respectively. The pooled duration of response for the reporting trials was 5.0 months. In the study cohort, 82.6% of patients experienced any adverse event and 32.1% experienced a grade 3-4 adverse event. Only 5.7% of the patients discontinued treatment secondary to TRAEs. CONCLUSION In patients with HER2-expressing BTCs, anti-HER2 therapies are viable options, particularly in the second-line setting.

Background: Rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as disease diagnosed at <50 years of age, are increasing. The incidence and spectrum of somatic and pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in this population are not well understood. Methods: This cross-sectional study leveraged Tempus’ clinicogenomic database, including de-identified records of patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000–2022, to analyze and compare eoCRC and average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC, disease diagnosed ≥50 years of age) patients. The frequency and spectrum of somatic mutations and PGVs in patients with eoCRC and aoCRC were evaluated and compared. Results: Among 11,006 participants in this study, 57% were male, 76% were white, and 80% had stage 4 disease. Within the total cohort, 2379 had eoCRC and 8627 had aoCRC. Among patients with eoCRC, 4.2% had a tumor with high microsatellite instability and/or deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) and 6.8% with aoCRC had an MSI-H/dMMR tumor (p < 0.001). The most frequent somatic mutations involved TP53, APC, and KRAS, with the most significant difference in BRAF, which was more frequently mutated in aoCRC (9.8% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0001). In total, 1413 (59.4%) eoCRC and 4898 (56.8%) aoCRC patients had matched normal specimen (blood or saliva) sequencing and a PGV was identified in 6.9% of eoCRC and 5.0% of aoCRC patients. Conclusions: Somatic and germline mutation profiles were similar for eoCRC and aoCRC patients and may not adequately explain differences in tumor behavior and age of disease onset.