Ciombor, Kristen K.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.

Abstract Purpose: The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is critical to the development of colorectal cancers, and KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations foster resistance to radiation. We performed a phase I trial to determine the safety of trametinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor, with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients and Methods: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled on a phase I study with 3+3 study design, with an expansion cohort of 9 patients at the MTD. Following a 5-day trametinib lead-in, with pre- and posttreatment tumor biopsies, patients received trametinib and CRT, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Trametinib was given orally daily at 3 dose levels: 0.5 mg, 1 mg, and 2 mg. CRT consisted of infusional 5-FU 225 mg/m2/day and radiation dose of 28 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy (total 50.4 Gy). The primary endpoint was to identify the MTD and recommended phase II dose. IHC staining for phosphorylated ERK (pERK) and genomic profiling was performed on the tumor samples. Results: Patients were enrolled to all dose levels, and 18 patients were evaluable for toxicities and responses. Treatment was well tolerated, and there was one dose-limiting toxicity of diarrhea, which was attributed to CRT rather than trametinib. At the 2 mg dose level, 25% had pathologic complete response. IHC staining confirmed dose-dependent decrease in pERK with increasing trametinib doses. Conclusions: The combination of trametinib with 5-FU CRT is safe and well tolerated, and may warrant additional study in a phase II trial, perhaps in a RAS/RAF-mutant selected population.

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

225 Background: ICIs induce durable responses in dMMR CRC patients. However, clinical and molecular biomarkers of response to ICIs have not been well-established. In this study, we investigated impact of specific MMR gene loss, BRAF V600E mutation and clinical characteristics of pts on clinical outcomes of ICIs. Methods: Pts were eligible if they had confirmed dMMR CRC by IHC or MSI-H by PCR and received ICIs between 01/01/2012 and 05/01/2019 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt or Stanford University. Due to the functional dependency, the groups were categorized as protein loss of MLH1+PMS2 vs MSH2+MSH6. Log-rank test, Cox hazard model and Fisher’s exact test were used for survival outcomes, the best response and the distribution of variables among the subgroups. Results: A total of 66 pts with dMMR CRC were identified and BRAF status was available for 41 pts. ORRs in MLH1+PMS2 and MSH2+MSH6 groups were 72.9% and 56.5% respectively (P = 0.189). At 2 years, PFS rates were 55.6% and 78.2% for MLH1+PMS2 and MSH2+MSH6 groups respectively (P < 0.001). Pts with BRAF V600E mutations had significantly worse outcomes as compared to pts with wild-type BRAF (2-year PFS rate of 35.0% and 73.3% respectively; P < 0.001). Notably pts < 65 had better 2-year disease control rates when compared to > 65 (71.1% and 41.5% respectively; P < 0.001). We also observed worse 2-year PFS rates in pts with liver metastases (P = 0.014). CRC side and tumor volume did not impact 2-year PFS rates in our cohort. Conclusions: Our data suggest that pts with loss of function in MSH2+MSH6 may have better 2 year-PFS rates compared pts with MLH1+PMS2 even though ORR favored MLH1+PMS2 group suggesting that ORR may not reflect the durability of ICI response in dMMR CRC patients. Consistently, pts with BRAF V600E mutation which is associated with MLH1 promoter methylation had significantly worse 2-year PFS rates. Overall, our findings suggest that BRAFV600E mutation, the affected MMR proteins, pt age, and site of metastasis may impact durability of ICI response in dMMR CRC patients.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.

e15029 Background: ICIs induce durable responses in dMMR CRC pts with overall response rates (ORR) of 30-50%. Even though the loss of expression of any MMR gene predicts ICIs response, it is unknown if ORRs are similar across all MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6). In this study, we analyzed the impact of each specific MMR gene loss and clinical characteristics of pts with best response to ICIs. Methods: Pts were eligible if they had confirmed dMMR CRC by IHC or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) by PCR, and received ICIs between 01/01/2012 and 10/01/2018 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Mayo Clinic or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Due to the pattern of frequent concurrent loss and functional dependency, the groups were categorized as MLH1 ±PMS2 vs. MSH2 ±MSH6. Cox proportional hazard model and Fisher’s exact test were used for the best response and the distribution of variable among the subgroups. Results: A total of 45 pts with dMMR CRC were identified. ORRs in MLH1 ±PMS2 and MSH2 ±MSH6 groups were 68% and 57.1% respectively without statistical difference (Table). Pts with age < 50 and 50-65 years old had better ORRs compared to pts with age >65 (58.3%, 85.7% and 42.1% respectively, P=0.036). Left-sided tumors had a trend toward higher ORRs compared to right-sided tumors (83.3% vs 51.5% P=0.086). Gender and BRAF status were not predictors of response. BRAF mutations were more common in right-sided tumors (29.6% vs 11.1% respectively) and in older patients. Conclusions: Our data suggest that MSI-H CRC pts aged 50-65 treated with ICIs, have improved ORR compared to pts > 65; pts with left-sided tumors have a trend toward improved ORR compared to those with right sided tumors. [Table: see text]

611 Background: Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with survival benefit in refractory mCRC patients (pts). Toxicities such as Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), fatigue and hypertension (HTN) have limited its use. Despite absence of supportive data, various dosing or interval scheduling have been implemented into clinical practice. Methods: A randomized phase II study of regorafenib dose-escalation (Arm A: 80 mg/day, weekly dose escalation if no significant drug-related toxicities, up to 160 mg/day) vs. standard dose (Arm B: 160 mg/day) in pts with mCRC for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Pts were randomized 1:1:1:1 to arms A1 and B1 (Pre-emptive Clobetasol for PPES); A2 and B2 (Reactive Clobetasol). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 2 cycles of treatment and initiated the 3rd in Arm A (Pooled A1 + A2) vs. Arm B (Pooled B1 + B2). Superiority for Arm A was to be declared if the one-sided p-value calculated using Fisher’s exact method was less than 0.2. Results: From June 2015 to June 2017, 123 pts were randomized with 116 (A = 54, B = 62) evaluable for the primary endpoint. Demographic data were well balanced with overall median age of 61yrs (range: 29-81), M/F (61/39%) and ECOG PS 0/1 (37/63%) and KRAS MT/WT/UNK (47/44/9%).The study met its primary endpoint with 43% of pts on Arm A initiating the 3rd vs. only 25% of pts Arm B [one-sided p-value 0.028]. Median Overall Survival (OS) was improved in Arm A vs. Arm B (9.0 mos vs. 5.9 mos; p = 0.094). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 2.5 mos for Arm A vs. 2.0 mos for Arm B (p=0.553). Overall rates of grade 3/4 toxicity were more favorable for Arm A vs. Arm B (% PPES 15 vs. 16, HTN 7 vs. 15 and fatigue 13 vs. 18, respectively). Multiple QOL parameters were improved in A vs. B primarily at week 2 of the first cycle. Conclusion: A strategy with weekly dose escalation of regorafenib from 80 mg to 160 mg/day was found to be superior to a starting dose of 160 mg/day. These results establish a new standard for optimizing regorafenib dosing. Further data on outcomes of preemptive vs. reactive clobetasol strategies are undergoing analysis and will be presented later. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.