Fanta, Paul T.

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Gastric cancer is the third 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, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.

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.

Abstract Background: Targeted therapies are increasingly under evaluation in clinical trials for the treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC), and cell-free tumor DNA assays are an emerging technology for the detection of actionable alterations. Methods: ctDNA analysis was performed in patients with BTC using the CLIA-certified Guardant360 liquid biopsy assay as part of routine clinical care. The assay screens up to 73 genes for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), 23 for insertions or deletions (INDELs), 18 for copy number variations (CNVs), and 6 for fusions. Results: 855 samples were analyzed from 751 unique BTC patients. Median age was 64 years (range, 29-89), 53% were female, and 631 (84%) had at least one alteration in their first sample. In the 751 patients, the most common genes altered were TP53 (39%), KRAS (15%), PIK3CA (13%), ARID1A (13%), EGFR (11%), FGFR2 (11%), ERBB2 (11%), NF1 (10%), IDH1 (10%), APC (9%), BRAF (9%), MYC (8%), MET (7%), CCNE1 (7%), and FGFR1 (7%). Alterations in DNA damage response genes were also seen, including BRCA2 (6%), BRCA1 (5%), ATM (4%), and MLH1 (1%). The median number of alterations per sample was 3 (range, 0-40). In a clinically annotated dataset from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 112 samples were obtained from 61 unique patients. Among these, 52 (85%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), 3 (5%) had extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 6 (10%) had gallbladder cancer. 20/61 (33%) patients were treated with targeted therapy. Among 20 patients with both ctDNA and tumor sequencing results, the targetable mutation was found in both ctDNA and tumor tissue in 7/20 (35%), solely in ctDNA in 1/20 (5%), and solely in tissue in 12/20 (60%) patients. The patient with the alteration detected solely in ctDNA had insufficient tissue for analysis; she was found to have an FGFR2 F276C mutation and benefited for 8.5 months from an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial. Of the 12 patients whose targetable mutation was not detected in plasma, 10 (83%) had an FGFR2 fusion, 1 had an INDEL in FGFR2 (Leu262_Ala266delinsAsp), and 1 had an FGFR3 splice site mutation. 15/20 (75%) patients treated with targeted therapy were followed with serial ctDNA analysis, and a potential resistance mechanism was identified in 5/15 (33%). All 5 patients had FGFR2-fusion positive ICC and developed mutations in the FGFR2 kinase domain as a potential resistance mechanism to FGFR inhibition, including the FGFR2 V564F gatekeeper mutation in 4/5 patients. Conclusions: In patients with BTC, ctDNA-based genomic profiling can detect alterations in IDH, FGFR, PIK3CA, ERBB2, BRAF, and MET. The technology is still evolving for the detection of FGFR2 fusions, which is hindered in capture-based methods in plasma by the large number of unique breakpoints and fusion partners. ctDNA analysis may also provide a noninvasive mechanism to study resistance to targeted therapy and clonal dynamics in BTC. Citation Format: Lipika Goyal, Robin Kate Kelley, Lesli Kiedrowski, Daniel Catenacci, Kabir Mody, Rachna Shroff, Aparna Parikh, Stephanie Reyes, Jordan R. Maurer, Ryan B. Corcoran, Paul Fanta, Mike Cusnir, Becky Nagy, Richard Lanman, Michael Morse, Benjamin Tan, Milind Javle, Andrew Zhu. Blood-based genomic profiling of cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with biliary tract cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A183.