Venook, Alan P.

PURPOSETo determine the predictive and prognostic value of the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) that represent a merging of gene expression–based features largely in primary tumors from six independent classification systems and provide a framework for capturing the intrinsic heterogeneity of CRC in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405.PATIENTS AND METHODSCALGB/SWOG 80405 is a phase III trial that compared the addition of bevacizumab or cetuximab to infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan as first-line treatment of advanced CRC. We characterized the CMS classification using a novel NanoString gene expression panel on primary CRCs from 581 patients enrolled in this study to assess the prognostic and predictive value of CMSs in these patients.RESULTSThe CMSs are highly prognostic for overall survival (OS; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS; P < .001). Furthermore, CMSs were predictive for both OS ( P for interaction < .001) and PFS ( P for interaction = .0032). In the CMS1 cohort, patients treated with bevacizumab had a significantly longer OS than those treated with cetuximab ( P < .001). In the CMS2 cohort, patients treated with cetuximab had a significantly longer OS than patients treated with bevacizumab ( P = .0046).CONCLUSIONThese findings highlight the possible clinical utility of CMSs and suggests that refinement of the CMS classification may provide a path toward identifying patients with metastatic CRC who are most likely to benefit from specific targeted therapy as part of the initial treatment.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussion and updated recommendations regarding systemic therapy for first-line and subsequent-line treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.

588 Background: CALGB/SWOG 80405 found no difference in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in 1137 patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with either the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab (Bev) or the anti-EGFR agent cetuximab (Cet) in combination with chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy. Additional molecular biomarkers are required for the optimization of treatment choices for patients with mCRC. Methods: Levels of 24 proteins were assayed in EDTA-plasma samples using multiplex ELISA techniques. Plasma samples were collected at baseline and cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1). Analyses of baseline markers have been presented previously. Changes from baseline to C2D1 were expressed as an L-ratio (LR, log2 of C2D1 divided by baseline measure). LRs dichotomized at 0 were analyzed for potential prognostic and predictive effects on OS and PFS using Cox models while adjusting for confounders (post-hoc optimized cutpoints were used for PLGF, TIMP1, VCAM1, and VEGFR3 due to skew in the distributions of these markers). P-values are not corrected for multiple testing. Results: Baseline and matched C2D1 samples from 446 patients (212 Bev/234 Cet) were available for analysis. Thirteen markers were differentially modulated between arms (p < 0.05). Early increases in CD73 (p = 0.001), ICAM1 (p = 0.022), TIMP1 (p = 0.001), TSP2 (p = 0.024), and VEGFR3 (p = 0.006) were prognostic for shorter OS. Increases in ICAM1 (p = 0.008), TIMP1 (p = 0.042), and TGFB1 (p = 0.039) were prognostic for shorter PFS. Changes in VEGFR3 (pint = 0.097) and TGFBR3 (pint = 0.052) were predictive for OS and PFS, respectively. No other markers were predictive for OS or PFS (p < 0.1). Conclusions: Changes in circulating plasma protein biomarkers observed in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405 were both prognostic and predictive for OS and PFS and warrant further study. Such changes could provide valuable information and help guide treatment decisions. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180830; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00265850. [Table: see text]

Background More than half of the 40,000 incident rectal cancer patients in the United States each year are diagnosed at clinical stage II and III (locally advanced stage). For this group, high rates of cure can be achieved with the combination of pelvic radiation and sensitizing 5-fluorouracil (chemoradiation), surgery and chemotherapy, but treatment is long, arduous and toxicities are substantial. The PROSPECT trial (N1048, NCT01515787) was designed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) could be used as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation without compromising treatment outcomes and to spare these patients excess toxicity. The statistical design balanced the twin co-primary goals of achieving low local and distant recurrence rates. Study design features contended with the need for stringent safeguards given limited phase II data, the need for straightforward criteria to facilitate both accrual and protocol fidelity and the importance of patients’ perspectives on symptom burden and treatment toxicity. Methods PROSPECT is an ongoing multi-site two-group seamless phase II/III randomized trial comparing standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy with selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Challenges addressed in the design and conduct of PROSPECT have included the following: (1) setting safety thresholds given limited single-center phase II data, (2) establishing workable eligibility criteria, (3) balancing competing time to local and distant recurrence as co-primary endpoints and (4) obtaining reliable and complete data for patients’ symptom burden. The design and implementation challenges, choices, modifications and their implications for the design of future national cooperative group clinical trials are presented. Results PROSPECT incorporated stringent thresholds for both complete surgical resection (R0) and the time to local recurrence as early stopping rules. When predetermined stopping criteria were not met after evaluation of the first 366 participants in the randomized phase II, the study transitioned seamlessly to phase III with cumulative accrual of over 1000 participants. Eligibility criteria stipulating rectal tumor location based on distance from the anal verge were unworkable, and the protocol was amended to a more pragmatic approach that assigned surgeons with primary responsibility for determining eligibility. Central radiology review was feasible and in some cases prompted discontinuation of protocol treatment. Participation in toxicity reporting using the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was uniformly high and was well accepted by participants from over 200 sites in the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Conclusion The strategies used to overcome these obstacles may inform the design of other studies that involve multi-modality treatment interventions, particularly trials where implementation of consistent criteria for eligibility and outcomes across hundreds of practice settings is necessary.