Alberts, Steven R.

167 Background: Previous studies have reported high TILs are a favorable prognostic factor in stage II CC. However, whether the impact of TILs on overall survival (OS) differs among pts who did or did not receive ADJ is still to be determined. We assessed the prognostic value of CD3+ TILs in pts with stage II CC according to whether they received ADJ or not (no-ADJ). Methods: Pts treated with curative surgery for stage II CC (2002-2013) were identified through the Santa Maria alle Scotte Hospital database. CD3+ TILs at the invasive front, center of tumor, and stroma, were determined by immunohistochemistry and manually quantified as the rate of TILs/total tissue areas. High TILs (H-TILs) was defined as > 20%. Pts were classified as high or low TILs (L-TILs) and ADJ or no-ADJ. Cox models were used to assess OS with hazard ratio estimates (95% CI). Results: Of the 678 pts included (356 deaths), 137 (20%) received ADJ while 541 (80%) did not. ADJ comprised fluoropyrimidine +/- oxaliplatin. Median follow-up was 8.5 years. The distributions of the 4 groups were: 16% (L-TIL/ADJ), 64% (L-TIL/no-ADJ), 5% (H-TIL/ADJ), 15% (H-TIL/no-ADJ). Compared to H-TILs/no-ADJ, ADJ pts had a significantly longer OS (P < .0001) regardless of the TILS rate while L-TILs/no ADJ had significantly shorter OS and higher risk of death (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.88; P < .0001) [See table]. On multivariable analysis, adjusting for perforation, obstruction, T-stage, grade, < 12 lymph nodes resected, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, the adverse prognostic impact of L-TILs (vs H-TILs) in no-ADJ pts was confirmed (HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.02, 1.82; P = .0373). Conclusions: Low CD3+ TILs rate was independently associated with shorter OS in stage II CC pts who did not receive ADJ, but was not prognostic among pts who had ADJ. These data suggest a potentially different impact of TILs in chemo-treated vs -untreated stage II CC which could affect clinical decision making. [Table: see text]

AbstractTrial InformationClick here to access other published clinical trials.Lessons LearnedTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy.BackgroundPatients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC.MethodsPatients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity.ResultsOf 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%–53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2–5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4–11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted.ConclusionFTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

3583 Background: The Microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually taken as a single biological entity whereas no data are available concerning prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cases. Methods: Resected KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumor stage III colon cancers (N = 4596) from patients (pts) randomly assigned to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant large phase III trials were prospectively analyzed for MSI status and dMMR mechanism (sporadic vs familial). Stratified Cox models were used to assess prognostic and predictive values of dMMR mechanism by treatment arms, adjusting for age, gender, tumor grade, ECOG PS, pT/pN stage and primary tumor location. Results: Among dMMR patients with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (N = 354), there were 255 (72%) sporadic ( BRAF mutated or WT with MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) familial (loss of MSH2 or MSH6, or loss MLH1 with BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1) cases. A large proportion of dMMR sporadic cases were mutated for BRAF (n = 200; 80%). In pts treated with FOLFOX, the disease-free survival (DFS) was not statistically different by dMMR mechanism, while for pts treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab, the sporadic cases did worse than familial cases (DFS; adjusted (adj) HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02-7.08; P= 0.04). Considering the predictive value, a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in sporadic (DFS; adjHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.79; P= 0.04) but not in familial dMMR pts (interaction P value regarding treatment effect = 0.03). Furthermore, a non-significant trend to a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in BRAF mutant (DFS; adjHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95-2.92; P= 0.07) but not in BRAF WT pts. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX was associated with reduced DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR cases. Further studies including the methylator phenotype (CIMP) analysis are needed to validate these results. Clinical trial information: NCT00265811 and NCT00079274.

3525 Background: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to be of poor prognosis. The interaction between MSI and BRAFV600E mutation complicates the picture. Methods: Patients with resected stage III CC from 7 studies with disease recurrence and data available for MSI and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary endpoint was survival after recurrence (SAR) to assess the prognostic roles of MSI and BRAFV600E, respectively. Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for clinicopathologic features (data collected 12/1998 to 11/2009). Results: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI tumors (n = 220) had significantly better SAR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; P = .029) than patients with microsatellite stable /proficient MMR (MSS) tumors (n = 1766). This was also observed when looking at patients treated by the standard FOLFOX adjuvant regimen only (aHR, 0.76; 0.58-1.00; P = .048). Same trends were observed when looking at MSI/dMMR patients outcome in BRAFV600E wild-type (aHR, 0.84; P = .10) and mutant (aHR, 0.88; P = .43) subgroups separately, without reaching statistical significance. As previously described poor SAR was observed in BRAFV600E mutants vs wild type patients (n = 244; aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < .0001) and this was also true in BRAFV600E mutants MSI/dMMR patients (n = 77, aHR, 2.65 ; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; p < .0001). Other factors associated with a poor SAR were : olderage, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence (by 1y increase). Conclusions: In stage III colon cancer patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy and before the era of immuno-oncologic agents, MSI/dMMR was associated with a better survival compared to MSS. BRAFV600E mutation seems to be a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients.

3520 Background: Duration of adjuvant FOLFOX or CAPOX for stage III CC is being guided by pt stratification into low (T1-3N1) and high (T4 or N2) risk groups based on the IDEA study. We determined the relative contributions of clinical and molecular features for prediction of time-to-recurrence (TTR) and survival after recurrence (SAR) within each risk group. Methods: Stage III CC (N=5,430) from 2 trials of adjuvant FOLFOX ± cetuximab with similar outcome by study arm [NCCTG N0147 (Alliance), PETACC-8] were used. Tumors were analyzed for mismatch repair (dMMR vs pMMR), mutations in KRAS (exon 2) and BRAFV600E. Median pt follow-up was 83.4 months. Relative contributions to predicting outcome were assessed using χ2 (Harrell’s rms) based on multivariable (MV) Cox models. Results: N (50.8%) and T (31.8%) stage were the top two contributors to prediction of TTR which supports risk grouping. High risk (n=2566) vs low risk (n=2774) pts had poorer TTR (HR 2.7, 95% CI, 2.4-3.0) and SAR [HR 1.6 (1.4-1.9)], both p<.0001. TTR: KRAS contributed the most to predicting TTR among high (58.6%) and low (51.1%) risk pts (Table). Contribution of MMR (16%) to predicting TTR was limited to low risk pts. Contribution of BRAFV600E to TTR was nearly 3-fold increased in high vs low risk pts. SAR: BRAFV600E contributed the most to predicting SAR, especially in high vs low risk pts (2-fold increase). Tumor sidedness and performance status (PS) were key contributors to SAR, but not TTR. MV associations: TTR: low risk, KRAS [HR 1.7 (1.4-2.3], MMR [HR 0.55 (.35-.87), gender (M/F) [HR 1.3 (1.0-1.5)], all p<.04]; high risk: BRAF [HR 1.3 (1.1-1.7)], sidedness (R vs L) [HR 1.14 (1.0-1.3)], KRAS [HR 1.4 (1.2-1.6)], all p<.04]. SAR: BRAF, sidedness, PS (all p<.05). Conclusions: KRAS mutation was the strongest predictor of shorter TTR in both risk groups whereas BRAFV600E was the primary driver of SAR, especially in high risk pts. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi. NCT00079274.[Table: see text]

3502 Background: DFS with 3 years median follow-up (3yDFS) was validated as a surrogate for OS with 5 years median follow-up (5yOS) in adjuvant chemotherapy CC trials prior. Recent data showed improved survival after recurrence and OS, over time, in pts who received adjuvant FOLFOX. Hence, re-evaluation of the association between DFS and OS, as well as the optimal follow-up of OS to aid its utility in future adjuvant trials is needed. Methods: Individual patient data from 8 randomized adjuvant studies conducted from 1998-2009 were included; 3 trials tested anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR agents. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates (i.e. hazard ratios) of 3yDFS and 5y to 8yOS was evaluated using both linear regression (R2WLS) and Copula bivariate (R2Copula) models. For the R2, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. Prespecified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥ 0.80 and neither < 0.7, with lower-bound 95% Confidence Interval (CI) > 0.60. The rank correlation coefficient (ρ) quantified the individual-level surrogacy. Results: Total of 18,886 pts were analyzed, with median age 60, 54% male, 83% stage III, 59% > 12 nodes examined. Median follow-up for survival ranged from 5 to 10 years across trials. Trial level correlation between 3yDFS and OS remained strong (R2WLS ≥0.74; R2Copula ≥ 0.89) and increased as the median follow-up of OS extended longer (see table). Analyses limited to stage III pts and/or trials tested biologics showed consistent results. Conclusions: 3yDFS remains a validated surrogate endpoint for 5yOS in adjuvant trials in CC pts per prespecified criteria. The correlation was strengthened with more than 6 years of follow-up for OS. [Table: see text]

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.