Citations

Oncolytic virotherapy represents a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Oncolytic viruses, including genetically engineered and naturally occurring viruses, can selectively replicate in and induce tumor cell apoptosis without harming normal tissues, thus offering a promising tool in the armamentarium for cancer therapy. While this approach has garnered much interest over the past several decades, there has not been significant headway across various tumor types. The recent approval of talimogene laherparepvec, a second-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus type-1, for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, confirms the therapeutic potential of oncolytic viral therapy. Herein, we will highlight and review the role of oncolytic viral therapy in gastrointestinal malignancies while discussing its limitations and potential alternative mechanisms to improve its treatment efficacy.

Abstract Lipocalin-2 (LCN2) promotes malignant development in many cancer types. LCN2 is upregulated in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and in obese individuals, but whether it contributes to PDAC development is unclear. In this study, we investigated the effects of Lcn2 depletion on diet-induced obesity, inflammation, and PDAC development. Mice with acinar cell–specific expression of KrasG12D were crossed with Lcn2-depleted animals and fed isocaloric diets with varying amounts of fat content. Pancreas were collected and analyzed for inflammation, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), and PDAC. We also used a syngeneic orthotopic PDAC mouse model to study tumor growth in the presence or absence of Lcn2 expression. In addition, to understand the mechanistic role of how LCN2 could be mediating PDAC, we studied LCN2 and its specific receptor solute carrier family 22 member 17 (SLC22A17) in human pancreatic cancer stellate cells (PSC), key mediators of the PDAC stroma. Depletion of Lcn2 diminished extracellular matrix deposition, immune cell infiltration, PanIN formation, and tumor growth. Notably, it also increased survival in both obesity-driven and syngeneic orthotopic PDAC mouse models. LCN2 modulated the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines in PSC of the PDAC tumor microenvironment, whereas downregulation of LCN2-specific receptor SLC22A17 blocked these effects. Our results reveal how LCN2 acts in the tumor microenvironment links obesity, inflammation, and PDAC development. Cancer Res; 77(10); 2647–60. ©2017 AACR

514 Background: Randomized trials and OCSs have demonstrated that BV treatment in 1st-line (1L), in 2L, and across multiple lines is associated with longer survival in patients (pts) with mCRC. This analysis was aimed at comparing the effectiveness of BV after 1st disease progression (PD) between male and female mCRC pts who received 1L BV-containing therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: ARIES is a large, prospective OCS that enrolled pts who received BV and chemotherapy (CT) for 1L mCRC. Post-PD effectiveness was assessed for men and women characterizing BV use by cumulative and dichotomous approaches. The primary analysis treated BV exposure as cumulative BV doses after 1st PD and post-progression overall survival (ppOS) as the time from 1st PD to death. A time-dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative BV exposure on ppOS, while controlling for potential confounders. A dichotomous secondary analysis characterized BV exposure as receipt of CT + BV (BBP) or CT alone (No BBP) within 2 months after PD and ppOS as time from 1st PD + 2 months to death. Results: Among the 1,550 1L mCRC pts enrolled, 1,199 (532 women) had PD. In the primary analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for ppOS decreased, on average, by 1.2% with each additional BV dose. When stratified by sex, the average risk reduction per BV dose over 15 doses was 1.8% in women and 0.7% in men. In the secondary analysis that included 331 women (BBP, 180; No BBP, 151) and 417 men (BBP, 245, No BBP, 172) who received BV ± CT within 2 months post-PD, the HRs for ppOS with BBP treatment were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.35–0.59) in women and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.41–0.67) in men. Statistical interaction tests for differences in the effectiveness of BV between men and women were negative for primary and secondary analyses (P of 0.58 and 0.77). Protocol-specified adverse events occurred in 17.8% of women and 10.2% of men in the BBP population; this difference was largely related to rates of hypertension (8.3% vs 2.4%, respectively). Conclusions: In ARIES, the effectiveness of BV after first PD was not statistically different between women and men with mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT00388206.

702 Background: Median overall survival (OS) in mCRC has significantly improved over the past 20 yrs, but the observed range of OS in pts remains wide; a large percentage of pts have OS <1 yr or >4 yrs. ARIES was a prospective OCS conducted from 2006–2012 that evaluated outcomes in pts receiving BV + chemotherapy (CT) for mCRC in general clinical practice. The objective of this analysis is to examine clinical characteristics of pts with long vs short OS. Methods: This analysis included 1,417/1,550 first-line (1L) BV-treated mCRC pts who died or had complete follow-up on study. Long OS was defined as OS within the upper quartile of the analysis population (range 42–67 mos); short OS was defined as OS within the lower quartile (range 0.3–12 mos). Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Pt and disease characteristics and treatment patterns were described using summary statistics. Results: Pt and disease characteristics are shown in the Table. Median PFS was 22.3 mos (95% CI, 19.9–23.3) vs. 4.9 mos (95% CI, 4.6–5.4), in the long-OS vs. short-OS groups. More pts with long OS received any second-line (2L) therapy (71% vs. 46%), and were exposed to 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan throughout the course of their disease (53% vs. 32%) compared with pts with short OS. KRAS/BRAF mutation status was not collected. Conclusions: Pts with long OS had better baseline performance status, primary tumors more likely to have been resected, and were more likely to have received 2L CT. Additional analyses of detailed treatment patterns and safety are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00388206. [Table: see text]

335 Background: CCA is a hepatobiliary malignancy with poor prognosis and few treatment options following cytotoxic therapy in the first-line metastatic setting. The fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) axis may promote CCA tumorigenesis. FGFR2 fusions (in up to 17% of intrahepatic CCAs) may predict FGFR inhibitor sensitivity. A prior phase 1 trial of the selective pan-FGFR inhibitor BGJ398 showed antitumor activity in a pt with CCA harboring an FGFR2 fusion. Methods: This ongoing phase 2, open-label study is evaluating oral BGJ398 125 mg once daily on a 3-week-on/1-week-off schedule (28-day cycle) in pts with advanced or metastatic CCA with FGFR2 fusions (n ≈ 40) or other FGFR genetic alterations (n ≤ 15) who progressed after cisplatin/gemcitabine or are cisplatin intolerant (NCT02150967). The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, best overall response (BOR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results: As of 10 July 2015, 26 pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions (n = 22) or other FGFR alterations (n = 4), pretreated with 1 to ≥ 4 prior regimens, were enrolled. Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 20% of pts), were hyperphosphatemia (50%), fatigue (42%), constipation (38%), cough (23%), and nausea (23%). Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in ≥ 2 pts were hyper/hypophosphatemia, lipase increase, and hyponatremia. AEs were manageable, reversible, and rarely led to treatment discontinuation. Among 22 pts evaluable for BOR, 3 achieved partial response and 15 had stable disease, including 10 with tumor reductions (-41%, n = 1; -2% to -29%, n = 9). Overall DCR was 82%. As of the cutoff date, 18 pts remained on therapy, of which 13 were on for > 120 days. Kaplan-Meier estimated lower limit (95% CI) of median time on study was 143 days. Conclusions: BGJ398 shows impressive anti-tumor activity and a manageable safety profile in pts with advanced FGFR-altered CCA, an indication of high unmet medical need. Updated data including additional responses post data cutoff will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT02150967.

535 Background: Prior ARIES analyses showed that BV-treated mCRC patients (pts) receiving chemotherapy (CT)/biologics + BV within 2 months (mo) after 1st progressive disease (PD) had longer post-progression survival (PPS) than pts receiving only CT/biologics. The present analysis evaluated whether this effect of BV was consistent when used with common 2L CT regimens— irinotecan- (iri-) and oxaliplatin- (ox-) based—in mCRC pts exposed to 1L BV in ARIES. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving 1L CT + BV. No tx regimens or assessments were protocol specified. This analysis evaluated 1L BV-treated mCRC pts who had PD, survived ≥2 mo after PD, and received 2L iri- or ox-based tx. PPS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), while adjusting for covariates (eg, 1L time to progression). Results: Of 1550 1L pts in ARIES, 1074 had 1st PD and survived ≥2 mo after PD. Of these 1074, 390 and 114 received 2L iri- and ox-based tx, respectively, ± BV ( table ). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. The incidence of targeted adverse events (TAEs) was as expected and similar between the BV and No BV groups over time. In pts receiving 2L iri- or ox-based CT tx, PPS in BV-treated pts was longer compared to those not on BV. Analyses may be limited by small pt numbers in some groups. Conclusions: Consistent with prior ARIES analyses, the continued use of BV after 1st PD was associated with prolonged PPS regardless of the 2L CT backbone used. [Table: see text]

480 Background: COs associated with varying Tx patterns in mCRC pts are poorly understood because patterns diverge from the randomized trials (RCT). The RCTs of BV (Avastin) plus chemotherapy (CT) in mCRC pts continued BV until progressive disease (PD), even if CT was stopped/changed. Some RCTs of BV+CT in mCRC show ∼50% of pts stopping Tx early for reasons other than PD with possible lessening of benefit. It is unclear if this is due to use of a particular CT regimen or other practice pattern. While the beneficial effect of post-PD BV Tx has been shown in ARIES (HR 0.52 BBP vs No BBP) [A Cohn, ASCO 2010], the effect of stopping BV or CT before PD is unclear. ARIES, a community based observational study with a large cohort of 1st line BV-treated mCRC pts, will assess the COs associated with different 1st line Tx patterns (BV and CT) based on real world practice. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving first- or second-line CT+BV. No Tx regimens or assessments are protocol specified. Data are collected prospectively at baseline (BL) and quarterly. Analyses included first-line pts with PD. Tx patterns of pts initially treated with FOLFOX/BV or FOLFIRI/BV are described and preliminary COs (PFS and OS) are estimated from K-M curves. Tx duration is calculated from enrollment date. Results: As of 2/5/10, 1,548 first-line mCRC pts enrolled (median follow up = 21 m); 1,133 pts had PD. Of 1,133 pts with PD, most had FOLFOX/BV (63%) or FOLFIRI/BV (16%) as first CT. BL characteristics were similar, but the FOLFOX/BV group had more stage 4 pts (74%). Main reasons for stopping BV include AE, max benefit achieved and CT holiday. Tx patterns and COs are in the table. Conclusions: ARIES first-line mCRC pts treated with FOLFOX/BV or FOLFIRI/BV had similar Tx patterns and COs despite the common opinion that they may differ in tolerability and possibly effectiveness. Additional analyses will assess the impact of stopping BV and/or CT before PD. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Purpose: The Conquer Cancer Foundation (CCF), the philanthropic arm of ASCO, is responsible for funding innovative clinical research. CCF wants to broaden its donor base instead of relying predominantly on health-care companies. Our Leadership Development Program (LDP) group was tasked with identifying potential donor sources and making recommendations to increase funding. Materials and Methods: We selected three sources to research: the general public, crowdsourcing/social media, and ASCO members. We subsequently focused our efforts on ASCO members, of whom only 2% to 3% are donors to CCF and < 8% are repeat donors. To analyze this low rate, we sent out two separate surveys to various groups of members within ASCO. Results: We identified lack of knowledge as a major deterrent to giving; surprisingly, even those who hold ASCO leadership positions or participated in committees lacked knowledge about CCF funding. Also, the misconception that ASCO is rich and does not need philanthropic support deterred giving; however, respondents would donate if given the right message that stresses the need of continued member-led donations. Conclusion: ASCO members, including those in leadership positions, need to be engaged more aggressively to support CCF. Increased education and updating the CCF message is likely to provide the greatest impact on higher member donation, repeated donations, and facilitate CCF’s goal of diversifying its donor base away from healthcare companies. Furthermore, we recommend using technology, such as mobile applications, and providing incentives and visibility to major donors.

Current treatment regimens for gastric cancer are not adequate. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) may be a key driving factor for growth and metastasis of this tumor type. In contrast to the conventional clonal evolution hypothesis, CSCs can initiate tumor formation, self‐renew, and differentiate into tumor‐propagating cells. Because gastric cancer can originate from CSCs, it is necessary to review current targets of signaling pathways for CSCs in gastric cancer that are being studied in clinical trials. These pathways are known to regulate the self‐renewal and differentiation process in gastric CSCs. A better understanding of the clinical results of trials that target gastric CSCs will lead to better outcomes for patients with gastric cancer. Cancer 2017;123:1303–1312. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society . This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.