Nagarajan, Arun

Introduction With the rapidly changing landscape of rectal cancer treatment, it is becoming increasingly challenging for clinicians to interpret and synthesise the vast amount of high-quality evidence being generated. A core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials in rectal cancer would help address issues surrounding outcome selection and reporting. The purpose of this research project is to develop a COS to be used in research comparing different treatment paradigms in the management of rectal cancer. Methods and analysis This will be a mixed-methods project, including a systematic review, semi-structured interviews and a Delphi consensus process. The project was designed in accordance with the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Handbook, which provides a framework for COS development based on existing evidence. A multidisciplinary Study Advisory Group, composed of rectal cancer providers, methodologists and patients, will oversee the project. A systematic review will be performed to identify an inclusive list of outcomes reported by researchers in previous rectal cancer trials. Outcomes will be collapsed into various core areas and domains according to the OMERACT Filter V.2.0. Semi-structured interviews with rectal cancer survivors and their partners/caregivers will help identify additional patient-centric outcomes not captured in the systematic review. Finally, after a final list of outcomes is generated, patients and healthcare professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi process to develop the final COS. Ethics and dissemination The study has received full approval with the Research Ethics Committee at the Integrated Health and Social Services Network for West-Central Montreal (health network responsible for the Jewish General Hospital) (REC: 2025-4377) and the Institutional Review Board of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (IRB: STUDY-25-00515). The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and a manuscript will be submitted for publication in a high-impact surgery and/or oncology peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number The study was registered in the COMET database in December 2023 ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2941 ). The full systematic review protocol, along with the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria, was registered online in September 2023 (researchregistry.com; reviewregistry1705).

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

Objective: In this study, we evaluate the utility of ctDNA analysis in a large cohort of patients for whom ctDNA testing was ordered commercially with real-world application. Summary Background Data: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for assessing post-surgical molecular residual disease (MRD) and response to treatment. Methods: A real-world data analysis was performed using commercial ctDNA testing (SignateraTM) from patients (N=795, n=5,971 plasma samples) with stage I-III colon cancer treated at multiple US institutions. The association of ctDNA detection within the MRD window, during surveillance, and the impact of ACT was correlated with patient outcomes. Results: ctDNA-positive patients during the MRD window and surveillance showed significantly shorter DFS compared to ctDNA-negative patients (hazard ratio (HR): 9.85, P<0.0001; HR: 26.91, P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis of the MRD window revealed ctDNA-positivity as the most significant factor associated with inferior DFS (adjHR: 7.7, P<0.001). MRD-positive patients who received ACT showed improved DFS compared to patients observed post-surgery (adjHR: 6.1, FDR adj P=0.0007). No ACT benefit was observed in MRD-negative patients (adj HR: 1.20, FDR adj P=0.768). On evaluating ctDNA dynamics from MRD to surveillance, patients who remained ctDNA-positive or converted from negative to positive showed a significantly inferior DFS (HR: 34.40, P<0.0001; HR: 13.65, P<0.0001) compared to persistently ctDNA-negative patients. Conclusions: Postsurgical ctDNA detection is prognostic of relapse and potentially predictive of ACT benefit in patients with resectable colon cancer, which may enable personalized surveillance, intervention, and/or trial options, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Purpose An ASCO provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO’s membership and other health care providers. This PCO addresses identification and management of patients and family members with possible predisposition to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature published from January 1998 to June 2018. Results of the databases searched were supplemented with hand searching of the bibliographies of systematic reviews and selected seminal articles and contributions from Expert Panel members’ curated files. Provisional Clinical Opinion All patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma should undergo assessment of risk for hereditary syndromes known to be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Assessment of risk should include a comprehensive review of family history of cancer. Individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer affecting two first-degree relatives meet criteria for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC). Individuals (cancer affected or unaffected) with a family history of pancreatic cancer meeting criteria for FPC, those with three or more diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in same side of the family, and individuals meeting criteria for other genetic syndromes associated with increased risk for pancreatic cancer have an increased risk for pancreatic cancer and are candidates for genetic testing. Germline genetic testing for cancer susceptibility may be discussed with individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, even if family history is unremarkable. Benefits and limitations of pancreatic cancer screening should be discussed with individuals whose family history meets criteria for FPC and/or genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .