Mulcahy, Mary F.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Abstract Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis and repair of DNA, making RNR-targeted therapy a rationale therapeutic strategy for radiosensitization. ETCTN 10388 (NCT04234568) evaluated safety and efficacy of the combination of lutetium 177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Method: This study was a multicenter phase 1 dose escalation trial [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] of triapine in combination with fixed dose lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE for well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NETs) after the failure of at least one line of prior systemic cancer treatment with an expansion cohort at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Oral triapine (100mg, 150mg, 200mg) was administered once daily on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. Response and adverse effects were assessed per RECIST and CTCAE 5.0, respectively. Exploratory correlative studies included tumor somatic and germline mutation testing, RNA sequencing, pharmacokinetics, deoxynucleosides and circulating cell free DNA analysis. Primary endpoints were safety and RP2D. Results: Overall, 31 patients were enrolled between 6 sites, 15 in the dose escalation phase and 16 in the dose expansion phase. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. One DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT in dose level 3 were observed. The RP2D of the combination is triapine 150 mg QD (dose level 2) on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Detailed safety and adverse event data will be presented at the meeting. There were 28 patients evaluable for efficacy, of which 6 (21%) achieved a partial response. At 12 months, 6 patients had progressed, while 22 (86%) remained progression free. Median PFS has not been reached. PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Conclusion: The combination of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE was safe with preliminary efficacy signals, which will be further evaluated in ETCTN 10558, a randomized phase 2 study that is comparing the effectiveness of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE to Lu-177 DOTATATE alone. Citation Format: Aman Chauhan, Susanne Arnold, Jill Kolesar, William Carson, Heidi Weiss, Rani Jayswal, Donglin Yan, Riham El Khouli, Aman Khurana, Jan Beumer, Heloisa Soares, Mary Mulcahy, Thorvardur Halfdanarson, Daneng Li, Heather Jacene, Percy Ivy, Elise Kohn, John Wright, Larry Rubinstein, Zeta Chow, Piotr Rychahou, Mark B. Evers, Charles Kunos, Lowell Anthony, Bhavana Konda. ETCTN 10388: a first in human phase I trial of triapine and lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT194.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. 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 status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, 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 locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org , covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

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.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.