Citations

PURPOSE Patients with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) have a dismal prognosis. This multisite, single-institution study analyzed the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced BTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS The prospectively maintained institutional database was searched for patients with advanced BTC. Electronic medical records of the patients with advanced BTC treated with an ICI that included programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 blockers were retrospectively reviewed to obtain data on patient characteristics, tumor characteristics including molecular biomarkers, detailed treatment, response characteristics, survival, and toxicities. The analysis included overall response rate, survival, and correlation between survival and molecular biomarkers. RESULTS The institutional database query identified 47 patients with advanced BTC who received at least one dose of an ICI; 11 (24%) patients in the first-line setting and the rest of the patients had refractory disease. The median age of the cohort was 62 years, and 51% were female. The overall response rate was 10.6%, with a disease control rate of 53.2%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.6 months and 6.9 months, respectively. Biomarker analysis revealed improved PFS in patients with tumor mutational burden > 5 mutations per megabase (median PFS: 6.4 v 2.2 months; P = .0027). No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION ICIs are well tolerated and have modest antitumor activity in patients with advanced BTC. The study result supports the exploration of tumor mutational burden as a potential predictive biomarker for response to ICIs in patients with advanced BTC.

Summary Exploratory analysis of a phase III trial in esophageal cancer found that the patients who most contributed to an overall survival benefit from PD-1 blockade were not responders, but non-responders. The analysis has limitations but may have implications for investigating the optimal timing of immunotherapy relative to other treatments. See related article by Okada et al., p. 3277

Abstract Chronic inflammation is a well-established carcinogenic pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC), but the role of inflammation in CRC prognosis is not well understood. Since cytokines are central in extensive biological networks to regulate inflammation, it is of great importance to investigate inflammatory cytokines and CRC survival. Among an NCI-sponsored adjuvant chemotherapy trial for patients with stage III colon cancer conducted between 2010 and 2015 (CALGB/SWOG 80702), we collected serum samples from 1,498 participants at a median of 1.6 months (interquartile [IQR]: 1.3-1.9 months) after surgery. IL-6, TNFR2, and hsCRP were assayed as biomarkers of chronic inflammation and were categorized into quintiles. The primary outcome was disease-free survival, defined as time from randomization to recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and time to recurrence. We estimated the associations of inflammatory biomarkers with survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 1,498 participants (median follow-up: 5.9 years), mean age was 61.3 years, 82.2% were White, 55.5% were male, and 387 experienced recurrence or death. Medians (IQRs) of biomarkers were 2.6mg/L (1.2-5.6mg/L) for IL-6, 2.9×103pg/mL (2.3-3.6×103pg/mL) for TNFR2, and 2.6mg/L (1.2-5.6mg/L) for hsCRP. Compared to the lowest quintile (Q1), the highest quintile (Q5) in inflammatory biomarkers was significantly associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratios were 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.15] for IL-6, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.22-2.54] for TNFR2, and 1.66 [95% CI, 1.17-2.35] for hsCRP). Similar patterns were observed for overall survival and time to recurrence. Our findings suggest that higher levels of inflammation after diagnosis were significantly associated with worse survival among those with stage III colon cancer, and reducing inflammation may be considered as a potential intervention to improve CRC survival. ‬‬ Associations of Inflammatory Biomarkers with Survival after Adjustment for Clinicopathologic Factors Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P for Trend Disease-free survival IL-6 1.00 1.14 (0.80-1.62) 1.37 (0.97-1.94) 1.44 (1.02-2.03) 1.52 (1.08-2.15) 0.02 TNFR2 1.00 1.21 (0.84-1.74) 1.43 (0.99-2.05) 1.56 (1.09-2.25) 1.76 (1.22-2.54) 0.002 hsCRP 1.00 1.34 (0.95-1.90) 1.62 (1.15-2.29) 1.26 (0.88-1.80) 1.66 (1.17-2.35) 0.04 Overall survival IL-6 1.00 1.44 (0.91-2.29) 1.56 (0.98-2.48) 1.48 (0.93-2.34) 1.68 (1.07-2.65) 0.09 TNFR2 1.00 1.57 (0.94-2.63) 1.88 (1.13-3.13) 1.92 (1.15-3.20) 2.31 (1.39-3.84) 0.003 hsCRP 1.00 1.27 (0.81-2.00) 1.72 (1.11-2.65) 1.22 (0.77-1.92) 1.73 (1.12-2.69) 0.06 Time to recurrence IL-6 1.00 1.34 (0.92-1.95) 1.48 (1.01-2.16) 1.55 (1.06-2.27) 1.54 (1.05-2.26) 0.07 TNFR2 1.00 1.14 (0.78-1.67) 1.28 (0.87-1.87) 1.48 (1.01-2.16) 1.54 (1.04-2.27) 0.02 hsCRP 1.00 1.27 (0.87-1.83) 1.64 (1.14-2.36) 1.21 (0.82-1.77) 1.55 (1.07-2.26) 0.12 Citation Format: En Cheng, Shi Qian, Anthony F. Shields, Elizabeth M. Cespedes Feliciano, Andrew B. Nixon, Ardaman P. Shergill, Katherine A. Guthrie, Felix Couture, Philip Kuebler, Pankaj Kumar, Dequincy Lewis, Benjamin Tan, Eileen M. O'Reilly, Justin C. Brown, Philip A. Philip, Bette J. Caan, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Associations of inflammatory biomarkers with survival among patients with stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702 [Alliance]) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 682.

3606 Background: Standard adjuvant CT for stage III CC are FOLFOX and CAPOX. Recently, IDEA study separated stage III patients (pts) into low risk (T1 to 3, N1) and high risk (T4 or N2). We recently confirmed benefit of OX in both risk groups. However, we observed a difference in the two high-risk subgroups, with benefit in N2 but not in T4 (Margalit O et al; Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021). This prompted us to compare outcomes (OS/TTR) between treatment with OX vs. without OX within sub-stage III CC groups defined by T and N. Methods: We pooled 4941 stage III CC pts from the three studies evaluating 6 months of CT with fluoropyrimidine (FP) ± OX: MOSAIC, C-07 and XELOXA. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2 and t-test. OS was compared between OX and no OX in T and N subgroups. Kaplan-Meier analyses, adjusted and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study were used. Sub-groups classification was done according to OX benefit and verified by interaction test (Int) considered as significant with a P<0.1. We considered for recommendation of using OX-based adjuvant CT, 1) significant benefit in OS, 2) significant Int between substage and adjuvant therapy, and 3) the three individual trials showing similar results (benefit or non-benefit of OX). Results: In stage III population, T3 pts were 74.9%, T1-2 12.4%, T4 13.1%, while N stage was N1 64.7% and N2 35.3%. Population was well balanced according to treatment allocation in most subgroups. A significant benefit of OX was only observed in T3N1 and T3N2 (OS HR 0.76). Whatever N stage, there was no significant benefit of OX in the T1-2 and T4 subgroups. The effect of OX+FP vs FP alone in OS of the three studies differed between T3 and T1-2 subgroups (P = 0.047). Interaction was borderline between T3 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.10) but there was no interaction between T1-2 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.429). A benefit of OX in TTR remained in the T4 population. Discrepancy between advantage in time to relapse (TTR) and no advantage in OS was not explained by survival post relapse. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that pts with T1-2N1-2 and T4N1-2 disease had no OS benefit of addition of OX to FP. The good survival achieved with FP alone in T1-2N1-2 pts (5-yr OS 89%) question the addition of OX. In the T4 population our results suggested that benefit of OX was limited and that further studies should assess this issue or at least stratify pts on T stage in the future adjuvant trials in CC. [Table: see text]

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

3525 Background: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are significantly associated with clinical outcomes in patients with colon cancer. However, the potential for a differential effect of TILs on prognosis based on primary tumor sidedness has not been studied. We determined the interaction between TILs and tumor sidedness in relationship to disease-free survival (DFS). Methods: We analyzed data on TIL densities by primary tumor sidedness in 1532 stage III colon carcinomas from participants in a phase III trial of FOLFOX-based adjuvant chemotherapy (NCCTG N0147). TIL densities were dichotomized as low or high (≤3 /HPF) based on an optimized cutoff previously identified for DFS in this cohort. Right-sided tumors were defined as proximal to the splenic flexure. Analysis of TILs and sidedness with DFS were examined using Kaplan-Meier methodology and multivariable Cox regression. Results: Overall, tumors with high vs low TILs had the best DFS [HRadj: 0.58 (95%CI: 0.45-0.74); Padj <0.0001]. The association of TIL densities with 5-yr DFS differed significantly by primary tumor sidedness ( Pinteraction (adj) = 0.045). Among right-sided tumors, high vs low TILs were significantly associated with improved DFS ( Padj <0.0001)[Table]. Among left-sided tumors, however, DFS did not differ significantly for high vs low TILs ( Padj =0.173)[Table]. Similar results for TILs and DFS by sidedness were found for pMMR cancers. We then analyzed our data in low risk (T1-3, N1) and high risk (T4 and/or N2) tumors. Among low risk tumors, high vs low TILs was significantly associated with improved 5-yr DFS only in right-sided tumors ( Padj =0.006) [Table]. Among high risk tumors, high vs low TILs were significantly associated with better DFS in both right-sided ( Padj<0.001) and left-sided ( Padj =0.024) tumors. Conclusions: Overall, tumors with high TIL densities had significantly better DFS in right-sided but not left-sided cancers. Among low risk patients, the association of high TILs with better DFS was limited to right-sided tumors. These findings suggest that TILs should be interpreted by sidedness for prognostication. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274 . [Table: see text]

The restricted mean survival time measure has gained a lot of interests for designing and analyzing oncology trials with time-to-event endpoints due to its intuitive clinical interpretation and potentially high statistical power. In the non-inferiority trial literature, restricted mean survival time has been used as an alternative measure for reanalyzing a completed trial, which was originally designed and analyzed based on traditional proportional hazard model. However, the reanalysis procedure requires a conversion from the non-inferiority margin measured in hazard ratio to a non-inferiority margin measured by restricted mean survival time difference. An existing conversion method assumes a Weibull distribution for the population survival time of the historical active control group under the proportional hazard assumption using data from a single trial. In this article, we develop a methodology for non-inferiority margin conversion when data from multiple historical active control studies are available, and introduce a Kaplan-Meier estimator-based method for the non-inferiority margin conversion to relax the parametric assumption. We report extensive simulation studies to examine the performances of proposed methods under the Weibull data generative models and a piecewise-exponential data generative model that mimic the tumor recurrence and survival characteristics of advanced colon cancer. This work is motivated to achieve non-inferiority margin conversion, using historical patient-level data from a large colon cancer clinical database, to reanalyze an internationally collaborated non-inferiority study that evaluates 6-month versus 3-month duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients.

Abstract Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform ( www.magicapp.org ) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/ . Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

SummaryProgression‐free survival (PFS) has been the regulatory primary end‐point for recent phase III trials in first‐line follicular lymphoma (FL), but requires prolonged follow‐up. Complete response (CR) at 30 months after initiation of induction treatment was validated as surrogate end‐point for PFS. Our objective was to further evaluate surrogacy of CR measured by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging at the end of induction (EoI). Individual patient data were analysed from 1505 patients from five randomized trials. Trial‐level surrogacy examining the association between treatment effects on EoI‐PET‐CR and PFS was evaluated using linear regression () and bivariate Copula () models. Although EoI‐PET‐CR strongly predicted PFS at a prognostic level, the trial‐level assessment did not show strong correlation (, confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.88; , CI: 0.0–0.82). The high uncertainty in estimation was possibly due to the small number of trials and the population of patients with available PET data. Maintenance therapy affecting PFS beyond induction treatment, but not EoI‐PET‐CR end‐point, may have distorted the association between treatment effects. However, there will probably be a number of additional trials approaching completion with available PET response data. Refined evaluation of PET‐CR based surrogate end‐points is still warranted.