Citations

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ontuxizumab (MORAb-004), a monoclonal antibody that interferes with endosialin (tumor endothelial marker-1) function, in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer and to identify a responsive patient population based on biomarkers. Experimental Design: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive weekly intravenous ontuxizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo plus best supportive care until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tissue and blood biomarkers were evaluated for their ability to identify a patient population that was responsive to ontuxizumab. Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled. No significant difference between the ontuxizumab and placebo groups was evident for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median PFS of 8.1 weeks in each group (HR, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–1.67; P = 0.53). There were no significant differences between groups for overall survival (OS) or overall response rate (ORR). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the ontuxizumab group (vs. the placebo group, respectively) were fatigue (53.7% vs. 47.5%), nausea (39.0% vs. 35.0%), decreased appetite (34.1% vs. 27.5%), and constipation (28.0% vs. 32.5%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAE in the ontuxizumab group versus placebo was back pain (11.0% vs. 0%). No single biomarker clearly identified patients responsive to ontuxizumab. Conclusions: No benefit with ontuxizumab monotherapy compared with placebo for clinical response parameters of PFS, OS, or ORR was demonstrated. Ontuxizumab was well tolerated. Clin Cancer Res; 24(2); 316–25. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract Background BRAF V600E mutations are present in 8%–10% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and portend poor prognosis. This study investigated the impact of metastasectomy for patients with BRAF V600E mCRC. Subjects, Materials, and Methods Using prospective clinical and molecular data, patients with BRAF V600E mCRC were analyzed for clinical characteristics and survival. Statistical analyses utilized the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard models. Results Fifty-two patients were identified between July 1, 2008, and January 4, 2016. Patient characteristics included median age 65 years, 61% female, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, 71% with right-sided tumors, and 28% with liver-limited metastasis. In the first-line setting, 7% (4/52) received fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)/bevacizumab (BEV) and 81% were treated with doublet chemotherapy consisting of fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and BEV. Median overall survival (OS) for all 52 patients was 25 months with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.3 months. With median follow-up of 18.3 months, 21 patients underwent metastasectomy with longer OS (29.1 months vs. 22.7 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33; confidence interval [CI], 0.12–0.78; p = .01) and PFS (13.6 months vs. 6.2 months, HR = 0.53, CI, 0.28–0.97; p = .03) compared with the non-metastasectomy cohort. In multivariate analysis, metastasectomy remained significant for improved survival outcomes (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.07–1.02; p = .02). Median disease-free survival after metastasectomy was 9.7 months (95% CI, 5.5–19.5). Two patients remain disease-free at the time of last follow-up, with one patient without relapse for greater than 2 years (28.9 months). Conclusion Multimodality therapy incorporating metastasectomy for BRAF V600E mCRC should be considered and might be associated with improved overall survival in select patients. Implications for Practice BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) represents an extremely difficult molecular subset of colorectal cancer to treat. To date, this subset remains refractory to standard chemotherapies, prompting extensive clinical investigation regarding novel treatment approaches and targeted modalities. While the use of metastasectomy for expanded RAS wild-type and RAS mutated mCRC has resulted in improved overall survival for select patients, utilization of metastasectomy in patients with BRAF V600E mCRC remains controversial. This article explores the authors' experience with BRAF V600E mCRC to ascertain whether a multidisciplinary approach incorporating metastasectomy for well-selected patients improves overall survival.

AbstractPatients with relapsed aggressive non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are often treated with platinum‐based chemoimmunotherapy regimens in preparation for autologous stem cell transplant. We sought to reduce toxicity and maintain efficacy by using oxaliplatin with rituximab, cytarabine and dexamethasone (ROAD) in a phase II clinical trial in patients who had relapsed after one prior regimen. ROAD was delivered q21 days and consisted of rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV weekly x 4 doses (cycle 1 only); dexamethasone 40 mg PO/IV d2 – 5; oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 IV day 2; cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 IV × two doses on days 2 to 3; and pegfilgrastim 6 mg SC on day 4. Forty‐five eligible patients were accrued between 2006 and 2008. Patient characteristics were a median age of 69 years; 96% had received prior rituximab; 53% were within one year of diagnosis. The median number of cycles received was 2 (range, 1‐6). Forty‐four % received ROAD as an outpatient. The overall response rate was 71% with 27% (12/45) CR and 44% (20/45) PR. Forty‐four % (20/45) of all patients and 69% (18/26) of patients whom responded after 2 cycles proceeded to transplant. Median overall survival was 26 mos (95% CI: 7.3 mos—not reached) and median progression‐free survival was 11 mos (95% CI: 6—104 mos). There was no grade 3/4 nephrotoxicity; the rate of grade 3/4 neuropathy was 4%. Forty‐two percent of all patients and 69% of patients transplanted remain alive at 5 years. ROAD represents an acceptable salvage therapeutic option for patients with relapsed aggressive NHL.

LBA1 Background: Since 2004, 6 months (m) of oxaliplatin (oxali)-based treatment has been the standard of care as adjuvant therapy for stage III CC. Since oxali is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, shorter duration of adjuv therapy could spare pts toxicity and lead to substantial saving in health expenditures. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of 6 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, Alliance/SWOG 80702, IDEA France (GERCOR/PRODIGE), ACHIEVE, HORG) was performed to evaluate the non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adjuv FOLFOX/XELOX. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from enrolment to relapse, 2nd CRC, and death (all causes). NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.12. NI was examined within regimen and stage subgroups as pre-planned. Results: The analysis included 12,834 pts from 12 countries, accrued from 6/07 to 12/15. Stage distribution: 13% T1-2, 66% T3, 21% T4; 28% N2; 40% received XELOX. G3+ neurotoxicity was higher in the 6m v 3m arm (16 v 3% FOLFOX, 9 v 3% XELOX, p<0.0001). With a median follow-up of 39 mos, 3263 DFS events were observed. Overall, the 3 year DFS rate was 74.6% (3m) and 75.5% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.07 (95%CI, 1.00-1.15). The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.16 (95%CI, 1.06-1.26) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.06) for FOLFOX and XELOX treated pts, respectively. The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.01 (95%CI, 0.90-1.12) in T1-3 N1, and 1.12 (95%CI, 1.03-1.23) for T4 or N2 pts. Conclusions: While NI was not established for the overall cohort, NI of 3m v 6m oxali-based adjuv therapy was supported for XELOX. As each IDEA trial treated varying proportions of pts with XELOX (0 to 75%), the regimen interaction likely produced the differential outcomes observed between individual studies. Certain substages (T1-3 N1) also showed NI for 3m v 6m. These data provide a framework for discussions on risks and benefits of individualized adjuv therapy approaches. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180835, INCA, PHRC2009, EME 09/800/34, HTA 14/140/84, CRUK C1348/A15960, JFMC. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045.

Purpose Molecular diagnostic testing has become an integral part of the evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded mutational testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), often identifies mutations with unclear clinical or prognostic implications. One such example is BRAF mutations that occur outside of codon 600 (non-V600 BRAF mutations). Methods We conducted this multicenter, retrospective cohort study to characterize the clinical, pathologic, and survival implications of non-V600 BRAF mutations in metastatic CRC. We pooled patients in whom non-V600 BRAF mutations were identified from NGS databases at three large molecular genetics reference laboratories. Results A total of 9,643 patients with metastatic CRC underwent NGS testing. We identified 208 patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations, which occurred in 2.2% of all patients tested and accounted for 22% of all BRAF mutations identified. Cancers with non-V600 BRAF mutations, compared with cancers with V600E BRAF (V600E BRAF) mutations, were found in patients who were significantly younger (58 v 68 years, respectively), fewer female patients (46% v 65%, respectively), and patients who had fewer high-grade tumors (13% v 64%, respectively) or right-sided primary tumors (36% v 81%, respectively). Median overall survival was significantly longer in patients with non-V600 BRAF-mutant metastatic CRC compared with those with both V600E BRAF-mutant and wild-type BRAF metastatic CRC (60.7 v 11.4 v 43.0 months, respectively; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, non-V600 BRAF mutation was independently associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.18; P < .001). Conclusion Non-V600 BRAF mutations occur in approximately 2.2% of patients with metastatic CRC and define a clinically distinct subtype of CRC with an excellent prognosis.

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.