Citations

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer address all aspects of management for breast cancer. The treatment landscape of metastatic breast cancer is evolving constantly. The therapeutic strategy takes into consideration tumor biology, biomarkers, and other clinical factors. Due to the growing number of treatment options, if one option fails, there is usually another line of therapy available, providing meaningful improvements in survival. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report focuses on recent updates specific to systemic therapy recommendations for patients with stage IV (M1) disease.

11505 Background: Potentiation of chemotherapy, without increased toxicity, to improve outcome is an area of interest. Preclinical and clinical evidence shows simultaneous utilization of antiangiogenic agents and chemotherapy have a synergistic effect. We hypothesized that the dual targeting of VEGF and c-MET pathways with cabozantinib (CAB) would result in clinical benefit for patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) when combined with temozolomide (TMZ), an alkylating agent. Utilization of CAB/TMZ is anticipated to produce a synergistic antitumor effect worthwhile to explore in STS. Methods: A multicenter phase II study of CAB/TMZ in patients with unresectable/metastatic leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and other STS was conducted by the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership. Age ≥ 18, adequate performance status, organ function, measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), and 0-5 prior chemotherapy regimens were required. CAB 40 mg PO daily plus TMZ 150-200 mg/m2 PO 1-5 days were given in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients enrolled in 2 cohorts: 1. Uterine and non-uterine LMS 2. Other STS. The first 14 subjects to be enrolled in the study in either cohort served as a safety lead in. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate (PFR) at 12 weeks for cohort 1. Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate, median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety and tolerability. The exploratory endpoint was to estimate the correlation of PFR and OS to expression levels of VEGF, amongst others. A Simon 2-stage design was used. Results: A total of 42 patients were enrolled in Cohort 1, and 30 in Cohort 2, across 5 sites. For Cohort 1, median age was 59 years (range 35-86), 85.7% were non-Hispanic, 73.8% were female, 61.9% had ECOG of 0. The PFR at 12 weeks was 45.9% (for 37 evaluable patient) with a median PFS of 6.4 months (95% CI 4.6-6.7). Five PR were observed for an ORR of 13.5%. For Cohort 2, median age was 63 (20-86), 83.3% were non-Hispanic, 36.7% were female, 53.3% had ECOG of 0. The PFR at 12 weeks was 50% (for 28 evaluable patients) with a median PFS of 3.2 months (95% CI 1.4-4.6). One PR was observed. Reported grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to one or both intervention drugs affecting ≥10% of patients (n = 70) included hypertension (10%), decreased neutrophils (18.7%), decreased platelets (31%). Conclusions: The combination therapy of CAB/TMZ in patients with unresectable or metastatic LMS exceeded its primary endpoint with a PFR at 12 weeks > 39%. The PFS of 6.4 months in Cohort 1 exceeds rates achieved with second line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and alkylators in LMS patients. Treatment was feasible and did not reveal any previously unreported toxicities. The combination with CAB with TMZ demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit and is worth further exploration in LMS. Clinical trial information: NCT04200443 .

9122 Background: Initial treatment selection for advanced NSCLC patients without driver mutations is mainly based on evaluating PD-L1 expression levels in the tumor tissue. However, PD-L1 assays are only moderately predictive. In addition, the guidelines for the PD-L1≥50% subpopulation are not definitive, enabling the usage of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) either as a monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. Here we aim to provide a decision-making tool for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC patients based on plasma derived biomarkers obtained before treatment initiation. Methods: Pre-treatment plasma samples were collected from 545 NSCLC patients receiving ICI-based therapy. Clinical benefit was evaluated based on progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months as a threshold. Deep plasma proteomic profiling was performed using aptamer technology. Based on the proteomic profiles, a computational model, termed PROphet, was developed and evaluated in a blinded manner on the validation subset (n = 272). The model output, clinical benefit probability, was used to stratify the patients into two groups, PROphet-positive or -negative. Results: The model displayed good performance with a high correlation between the predicted clinical benefit and the observed clinical benefit rate (R2= 0.97), outperforming a PD-L1-based prediction model (R2= 0.35). Patients classified as PROphet-positive achieved significantly longer overall survival (OS) than PROphet-negative patients, with a median OS of 25.9 versus 10.8 months (hazard ratio, HR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, CI = 0.37-0.70; p-value < 0.001). Next, we examined the clinical utility of combining the PROphet output with PD-L1 levels by comparing different treatment modalities. Focusing on PD-L1≥50%, patients with PROphet-positive results displayed similar OS and PFS when receiving ICI monotherapy or ICI-chemotherapy (OS HR = 0.77; CI = 0.42-1.43; p-value = 0.4096), suggesting that these patients may consider monotherapy, thus avoiding chemotherapy-related toxicity. Conversely, PD-L1≥50% patients with a PROphet-negative result displayed a significantly longer OS and PFS when receiving ICI-chemotherapy in comparison to ICI monotherapy, with a median OS that was not reached versus 11.10 months in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups, respectively (HR = 0.29; CI = 0.14-0.59; p-value < 0.001). These patients should consider combination therapy, avoiding a treatment that is suboptimal for them. Results for PD-L1 1-49% and < 1% provide additional clinical information for each subgroup. Conclusions: Plasma proteomic profiling can provide biomarkers that accurately predict the benefit of ICI-based treatment. The model output complements tissue PD-L1 expression levels as a tool to assist therapeutic decisions.

TPS8603 Background: Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare and poorly studied disease with few treatment options. For patients (pts) who are not surgical candidates, treatment recommendations for systemic therapy have been extrapolated from clinical trials for pleural mesothelioma that commonly exclude pts with peritoneal mesothelioma. Recently, the combination of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab received FDA-approval for the frontline treatment of non-resectable pleural mesothelioma. Additionally, a prospective, non-randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated activity with combined PD-L1 (atezolizumab) and VEGF (bevacizumab) blockade in peritoneal mesothelioma. In parallel, encouraging activity with combined chemo-immunotherapy has been reported in pleural mesothelioma. Given the benefits observed with immunotherapy, and the potential to improve upon those with chemotherapy and VEGF inhibition, we seek to determine whether the addition of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab improves outcomes with chemotherapy and bevacizumab in pts with newly diagnosed peritoneal mesothelioma. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A092001 is a prospective, randomized phase 2 clinical trial. All pts with newly diagnosed peritoneal mesothelioma will be randomized 1:1 using a dynamic allocation Pocock-Simon procedure to receive carboplatin, pemetrexed and bevacizumab, with or without atezolizumab, every 21 days for four cycles. Patients who are eligible to proceed with surgery after four cycles of therapy will then do so. Pts who are not eligible to proceed with surgery may receive maintenance bevacizumab and atezolizumab, or second-line atezolizumab with bevacizumab until progression of disease or toxicity. The primary objective is to determine if frontline treatment with carboplatin, pemetrexed, bevacizumab and atezolizumab results in a superior best response rate (RR) to carboplatin, pemetrexed and bevacizumab as determined by RECIST. With 31 eligible pts per arm (62 eligible total), this randomized design has 80% power to detect an improvement in the RR from 20% to 45%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.10 where an interim futility analysis will be conducted after 32 pts are enrolled. Stratification factors include eligibility for cytoreductive surgery at diagnosis and histologic subtype. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse events. As integrated biomarkers, we will determine if soluble mesothelin-related peptides and megakaryocyte potentiating factor correlate with responses. This trial was recently approved by the National Cancer Institute Central IRB and is activating at sites across the country. Clinical trial information: NCT05001880 .

TPS8602 Background: Sarcomatoid mesothelioma is the most aggressive form of pleural mesothelioma and is associated with the worst prognosis of the histologic variants of this disease. In the Checkmate 743 clinical trial the patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma who received ipilimumab and nivolumab had survival outcomes that were similar to those of patients with epithelioid mesothelioma. In comparison, the patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma who received chemotherapy had the worst outcomes in this trial, highlighting the known limited efficacy of chemotherapy against this histologic variant. Checkmate 743 demonstrated that ipilimumab and nivolumab is a new standard of care for non-epithelioid mesothelioma. Surgery typically has not been offered to this group of patients given their historically poor outcomes. With the significant survival gains seen patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma treated with immunotherapy, we hypothesized that surgery may extend the benefits seen with immunotherapy. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A082101 is a prospective, phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial for patients with sarcomatoid mesothelioma. The co-primary objectives are to determine the percentage of patients with potentially resectable sarcomatoid mesothelioma able to proceed with surgery after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 months (12-month PFS). For sample size determination, we assumed that if the true rate of surgery is 75% or greater, it would indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is feasible to be given prior to surgery. On the other hand, if the true rate of surgery is 50% or less it would indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is not worthy of further investigation. Twenty-six (26) eligible patients will be needed to receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy. If 16 or fewer of the 26 eligible patients proceed to surgery, it will be concluded that the experimental therapy is not worthy of further investigation. Otherwise, it will be concluded that the experimental therapy is worthy of further investigation. Safety monitoring will be done through a 6-week run-in for the first 10 patients to assess for pre-operative and post-operative toxicities and complications. Sequential boundaries will be used to monitor severe toxicity and complication rates. Accrual will be halted if excessive numbers of severe toxicity and complications in pre-operative and post-operative phases are seen. Tumor and blood-based biomarkers will be included as exploratory biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT05647265 .

7018 Background: MF is a life-limiting malignancy characterized by marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, and progressive cytopenias. JAK2 inhibitors can reduce spleen volume, which is considered a surrogate for disease response. For example, ≥10% SVR on ruxolitinib (RUX) is associated with improved OS among patients with platelet (PLT) counts ≥100×109/L. RUX cannot be administered at full dose in patients with lower PLTs, and it is not known whether the association between SVR and OS persists in such patients. PAC is a JAK1-sparing inhibitor of JAK2/IRAK1/ACVR1 that demonstrated SVR benefit vs BAT (including RUX) in PERSIST-2, which enrolled MF patients with PLTs ≤100×109/L. Here we present a retrospective landmark OS analysis of the relationship between SVR and OS on PERSIST-2. Methods: This analysis includes PERSIST-2 patients who were alive and on study at the start of the 12-week SVR window (study week 10) on PAC 200 mg BID or BAT. Spleen volume was assessed radiographically (MRI or CT). OS was evaluated among SVR responders vs non-responders within each treatment arm using different SVR thresholds (≥35%, ≥20%, ≥10%, > 0%) and a landmark analysis methodology. OS was compared using the log-rank test. Results: Among patients on PAC (n = 89), any SVR ( > 0%) at 12 weeks was significantly associated with improved survival (HR = 0.08 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.51], P = 0.0007). Among all SVR response thresholds, SVR ≥10% demonstrated the greatest separation in OS curves between responders vs. non-responders on PAC, with no deaths on study among 65 responders compared to 5 deaths among 24 non-responders (HR = 0.0 [95% CI: 0.0, 0.14], P < 0.0001). By contrast, SVR did not predict OS benefit on BAT (n = 84), including RUX (n = 39). For example, 11% (3/28) of patients on BAT who achieved SVR ≥10% died compared to a similar number (14%, 8/56) of non-responders (HR = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.17, 2.37], P = 0.49). Of the 28 patients on BAT who achieved SVR ≥10%, 23 (82%) were treated with RUX. Among these 23 patients, most patients were receiving low-dose RUX at the time of the landmark: 78% were on ≤10 mg BID and 43% were on £5 mg BID. By contrast, the median relative dose intensity on PAC was 100% (200 mg BID) through week 12 among both SVR ≥10% responders and non-responders. Conclusions: In MF patients with PLTs ≤100×109/L, achieving SVR on full-dose PAC was associated with significant OS benefit. By contrast, this association was not found with BAT, even though most responders were on RUX, albeit at low doses. As PAC can be given at full dose regardless of PLT count, it is possible that PAC may offer a unique survival advantage for MF patients with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia who achieve spleen reduction. Clinical trial information: NCT02055781 .