Jethwa, Krishan R.

Abstract Background Optimal treatment following first-line immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain. This study evaluated futibatinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, combined with pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with FGF19-expressing HCC. Methods Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with advanced HCC, prior systemic therapy, Child-Pugh A-B7 liver function, ECOG 0–2, and FGF19 overexpression. Patients received futibatinib 20 mg orally daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2021 and March 2024, 14 patients enrolled and 13 were evaluable. Median age was 72 years (range, 60–87), 53.8% were male, 92.3% had Child-Pugh A liver function, and all had received prior immunotherapy. Median progression-free survival was 15 weeks (95% CI, 9.0–NE), with a PFS6 rate of 23.1% (95% CI, 8.6–62.3%). ORR was 0% (95% CI, 0–24.7%), while stable disease was observed in 53.9% of patients. Median OS was 55.7 weeks (95% CI, 47.3–NE). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.2% of patients, and grade ≥4 adverse events in 15.4%. One grade 5 event (acute-on-chronic kidney injury) was deemed unrelated to treatment. Common adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, fatigue, diarrhea, elevated transaminases, dry eye, nail changes, rash, and oral mucositis. Conclusions Futibatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but did not meet efficacy thresholds supporting further study in FGF19-expressing HCC. Effective post-immunotherapy treatment strategies remain an unmet need.

Objectives: Rates of locoregional recurrence and distant metastases are high following curative-intent resection for patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant therapies have been investigated with the intent to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve OS. The objective of this study is to update and summarize the current evidence for adjuvant therapy following surgical resection for nonmetastatic PDAC with a focus on high-level evidence and randomized controlled trials is provided. Methods: This multispecialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA methodology. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective (n≥25) studies published between January 1, 2013 and February 13, 2026, from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and Scopus databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND/UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: Of the 74 references used as evidence, 74 are categorized as therapeutic references. Study type and quality for the references were assessed, and included 31 well-designed studies (phase II randomized and phase III), 14 moderately well-designed studies that account for most common biases (matched cohort and phase II studies), 28 studies with design limitations (retrospective reviews), and 1 reference meta-analysis. Conclusions: This systematic review and guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations focusing on recent advancements for adjuvant treatment of resected PDAC using modern systemic therapy regimens and selective use of radiotherapy using modern techniques.

Abstract This literature‐based systematic review and associated guidelines provide evidence‐based paradigms for the management of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This multispecialty committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and colorectal surgery. As is the standard, the previously described American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria methodology for this project was followed rigorously, with the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology to assess the evidence. RAND/University of California Los Angeles consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of treatment options. Published between January 1, 2013, and July 16, 2025, 116 peer‐reviewed trials provided the evidence: 10 were well‐designed randomized phase 2/3 trials, 29 were moderately well designed trials that accounted for most common biases (matched cohort and phase 2), 76 trials had design limitations (retrospective), and one was a meta‐analysis. Clinical cases were created as examples to illustrate current acceptable management of LRRC. Treatment and prognosis are influenced by prior therapy and the site(s) and extent of LRRC. The ability to achieve a margin‐negative surgical resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control. Preoperative systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of the two can facilitate tumor downsizing and improve the likelihood of a margin‐negative resection. An individualized multidisciplinary approach is required to ensure the best outcome. Although this review does not suggest a major alteration of current practice, it provides reassuring evidence of the importance of combined‐modality therapy.

Introduction With the rapidly changing landscape of rectal cancer treatment, it is becoming increasingly challenging for clinicians to interpret and synthesise the vast amount of high-quality evidence being generated. A core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials in rectal cancer would help address issues surrounding outcome selection and reporting. The purpose of this research project is to develop a COS to be used in research comparing different treatment paradigms in the management of rectal cancer. Methods and analysis This will be a mixed-methods project, including a systematic review, semi-structured interviews and a Delphi consensus process. The project was designed in accordance with the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Handbook, which provides a framework for COS development based on existing evidence. A multidisciplinary Study Advisory Group, composed of rectal cancer providers, methodologists and patients, will oversee the project. A systematic review will be performed to identify an inclusive list of outcomes reported by researchers in previous rectal cancer trials. Outcomes will be collapsed into various core areas and domains according to the OMERACT Filter V.2.0. Semi-structured interviews with rectal cancer survivors and their partners/caregivers will help identify additional patient-centric outcomes not captured in the systematic review. Finally, after a final list of outcomes is generated, patients and healthcare professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi process to develop the final COS. Ethics and dissemination The study has received full approval with the Research Ethics Committee at the Integrated Health and Social Services Network for West-Central Montreal (health network responsible for the Jewish General Hospital) (REC: 2025-4377) and the Institutional Review Board of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (IRB: STUDY-25-00515). The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and a manuscript will be submitted for publication in a high-impact surgery and/or oncology peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number The study was registered in the COMET database in December 2023 ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2941 ). The full systematic review protocol, along with the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria, was registered online in September 2023 (researchregistry.com; reviewregistry1705).

Background: Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) carries a poor prognosis, with systemic therapy remaining the standard of care. While metastasis-directed therapy improves outcomes in select gastrointestinal malignancies, the role of liver-directed intervention in metastatic SCCA remains undefined. We evaluated clinicopathologic features and oncologic outcomes of patients with liver-limited metastatic SCCA treated with curative-intent hepatic local therapy at a tertiary academic center. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with histologically confirmed SCCA and liver-only metastatic disease who underwent curative-intent hepatic resection or ablation at Mayo Clinic between 1993 and 2023. Patients with extrahepatic disease or incomplete records were excluded. Demographic, tumor, treatment, and outcomes data were abstracted from electronic medical records. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Prognostic factors were assessed using univariate Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Twenty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 56.7 years, and 92% were female. Most patients had metachronous metastases (76%), a single hepatic lesion (56%), and unilobar disease (76%). Pre-intervention systemic therapy was administered in 52% of patients, with radiographic complete or partial responses observed in all treated patients. Liver-directed therapy consisted of surgical resection in 80% and thermal ablation in 20%. Among surgical patients, 90% achieved microscopically negative margins. With a median follow-up of 22 months, disease recurrence occurred in 80% of patients, most commonly within the liver. Median DFS was 7.27 months. Median OS from the date of liver-directed therapy was 51.3 months. On univariate analysis, poorly differentiated tumor histology was associated with inferior OS (hazard ratio 4.67, p = 0.018). No other clinicopathologic variables were significantly associated with DFS or OS. Conclusions: In this single-institution experience, carefully selected patients with liver-limited metastatic SCCA undergoing curative-intent hepatic-directed therapy achieved prolonged overall survival, substantially exceeding historical outcomes with systemic therapy alone. Despite frequent recurrence, the observed median OS exceeding four years supports consideration of liver-directed therapy within a multidisciplinary framework for patients demonstrating favorable disease biology and response to systemic treatment. Prospective studies are needed to better define patient selection and optimal integration of local and systemic therapies in the modern treatment era.

Objectives: For locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (R-ACA), a nonoperative management (NOM) approach has emerged as a guideline-supported treatment option. However, the variables associated with NOM receipt are unknown. Methods: Utilizing the National Cancer Database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults with stage 1 to 3 R-ACA managed with curative intent from 2004 to 2018. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving NOM versus surgery. The secondary outcome was survival among NOM patients. Results: A total of 128,297 patients were included. In all, 115,888 (90.3%) received surgery and 12,409 (9.7%) received NOM. Receipt of NOM was associated with age above 70, Charlson-Deyo score of 0, race (Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or other vs. White), insurance status, geographical region, treatment in a community facility, year of diagnosis (2012-2018 vs. 2004-2011), tumor grade 1 versus ≥ 2, clinical T-stage ≥ 2, and clinical N1 or N2 versus N0. In the NOM cohort, poorer overall survival was associated with age 70 and above, male sex, Charlson-Deyo score ≥ 1, insurance status, geographical region, rural urban density versus metro/urban, treatment in a community facility, year of diagnosis (2004-2011 vs. 2012-2018), clinical T4 versus T1, clinical N1 or N2 versus N0, grade 3 versus 1, treatment with a radiotherapy dose <45 Gy versus 45 to 54 Gy, and omission of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Several demographic factors and social determinants of health were associated with receipt of NOM and overall survival. With the increasing utilization of NOM, it will be important to understand the drivers of treatment decisions and influences on access to the desired treatment approach.

ABSTRACT Background Multimodality therapy incorporating a combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), intraperitoneal (IP) and systemic therapy continues to evolve for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) However, treatment and outcomes vary depending on tumor of origin. Aims To develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines to facilitate treatment decision‐making for patients with PC based on available evidence. Materials and Methods The American Radium Society (ARS) multidisciplinary expert panel performed a comprehensive systematic review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established modified Delphi consensus methodology. Results Treatment of PC is often treated with a combination of CRS and IP ± systemic chemotherapy but specific recommendations exist for different tumor types and outcomes vary. Discussion Treatment of PC is complex and varies depending on origin of primary tumor and extent of disease. These AUC assist in patient and treatment selection for different clinical scenarios. Conclusion A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the management of PC from different tumor origins.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

e14551 Background: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are microscopic particles released by all cell types with a distinct fingerprint reflecting the cell of origin. In patients with prostate cancer, PSMA+EVs have been associated with clinical outcomes. In this study, we investigated tumor-derived EVs (tdEVs) using the tumor-specific CD326 marker as a novel biomarker for pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: The study included patients with localized PDAC treated on a prospective phase 2 clinical trial evaluating a 15-fraction chemoradiation (CRT) regimen. Blood samples were obtained after induction chemotherapy (C) (prior to CRT) and in follow-up. 20 healthy controls were included. High-resolution flow cytometry enumerated levels of fluorescent antibody labelled tumor-specific CD326 (EpCAM)-positive EVs. All samples were de-identified and randomly coded. The technologist responsible for EV analysis was blinded to patient information and clinical data. Each sample was run in triplicate. Flow cytometry data was analyzed with custom-built software to automatically determine and apply gates and generate reports with scatter plots and EV concentrations for each combination of markers and data summaries. Results: tdEV data were analyzed from 70 patients with pre-CRT samples. Patients had mean age 66 years (9.0 standard deviation), with 60% ECOG 0, 43% borderline resectable and 48% locally advanced. Patients had a median 8 cycles of C prior to CRT, and 70% proceeded to surgery after CRT. 2-year overall survival (OS) was 54%. Patient samples showed elevated total CD326 EVs compared to the healthy controls (p = 0.0005). Furthermore, patient CD326 EVs revealed two distinct subpopulations: small (120-1,000nm) and large (1,000-3,000nm) size CD326 EVs. No large CD326 subpopulation was found in healthy donor samples. Higher pre-CRT levels of total CD326 and large CD326 EVs were associated with decreased progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.38, p = 0.013 and HR = 2.017, p = 0.021) on multivariable models with surgical resection. Resection was associated with increased PFS (p < 0.0001), and the interaction terms did not meet significance (p = 0.083 and p = 0.21). No differences in pre-CRT total or large CD326 EVs were identified between patients with or without surgical resection (p = 0.72 and p = 0.83). CA19-9 levels were not predictive of clinical outcomes in this trial and showed no association with EV levels. Conclusions: We present an association between clinical outcomes and tdEVs in PDAC, highlighting their potential as a novel, independent biomarker. If validated, tdEVs may offer an opportunity to personalize care and improve risk stratification.