Fluoropyrimidine type, patient age, tumour sidedness and mutation status as determinants of benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with EGFR monoclonal antibodies: individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised trials from the ARCAD database

BACKGROUND

KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit.

METHODS

Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis.

RESULTS

5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

Impact of KRASG12 mutations on survival with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of the phase III SUNLIGHT trial

BACKGROUND

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), KRAS mutations are often associated with poorer survival; however, the prognostic impact of specific point mutations is unclear. In the phase III SUNLIGHT trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus FTD/TPI alone. We assessed the impact of KRASG12 mutational status on OS in SUNLIGHT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the global, open-label, randomized, phase III SUNLIGHT trial, adults with mCRC who had received no more than two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 1 : 1 to receive FTD/TPI alone or FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab. In this post hoc analysis, OS was assessed according to the presence or absence of a KRASG12 mutation in the overall population and in patients with RAS-mutated tumors.

RESULTS

Overall, 450 patients were analyzed, including 302 patients in the RAS mutation subgroup (214 with a KRASG12 mutation and 88 with a non-KRASG12RAS mutation). In the overall population, similar OS outcomes were observed in patients with and without a KRASG12 mutation [median 8.3 and 9.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.4]. Similar OS outcomes were also observed in the subgroup analysis of patients with a KRASG12 mutation versus those with a non-KRASG12RAS mutation (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.4). FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab improved OS compared with FTD/TPI alone irrespective of KRASG12 mutational status. Among patients with a KRASG12 mutation, the median OS was 9.4 months with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab versus 7.2 months with FTD/TPI alone (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93), and in patients without a KRASG12 mutation, the median OS was 11.3 versus 7.1 months, respectively (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a KRASG12 mutation had no detrimental effect on OS among patients treated in SUNLIGHT. The benefit of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab over FTD/TPI alone was confirmed independently of KRASG12 status.

Tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for European and North American patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase III RATIONALE-302 study

BACKGROUND

The phase III RATIONALE-302 study evaluated tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, as second-line (2L) treatment for advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This prespecified exploratory analysis investigated outcomes in patients from Europe and North America (Europe/North America subgroup).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with tumor progression during/after first-line systemic treatment were randomized 1 : 1 to open-label tislelizumab or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan).

RESULTS

The Europe/North America subgroup comprised 108 patients (tislelizumab: n = 55; chemotherapy: n = 53). Overall survival (OS) was prolonged with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy (median: 11.2 versus 6.3 months), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.87]; HR was similar irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 score [≥10%: 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.21); <10%: 0.55 (95% CI 0.30-1.01)]. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 versus 2.7 months with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy [HR: 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.47)]. Overall response rate was greater with tislelizumab (20.0%) versus chemotherapy (11.3%), with more durable response (median duration of response: 5.1 versus 2.1 months). Tislelizumab had a favorable safety profile versus chemotherapy, with fewer patients experiencing ≥grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (13.0% versus 51.0%). Those on tislelizumab experienced less deterioration in health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and/or disease- and treatment-related symptoms (i.e. fatigue, pain, and eating problems) as compared to those on chemotherapy, per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ-OES18 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

As a 2L therapy for advanced/metastatic ESCC, tislelizumab improved OS and had a favorable safety profile as compared to chemotherapy in European/North American ESCC patients in the randomized phase III RATIONALE-302 study.

Different prognostic values of KRAS exon 2 submutations and BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite stable (MSS) and unstable (MSI) stage III colon cancer: an ACCENT/IDEA pooled analysis of seven trials

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III colon cancer (CC) remains controversial and has never been clearly analyzed in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors due to sample size limitations. Data are also lacking for KRAS submutations and prognosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined clinicopathological variables and prognosis in patients with surgically resected stage III CC who participated in seven clinical trials from the ACCENT/IDEA databases. Associations between KRAS exon 2 and BRAFV600E mutations and time to recurrence (TTR), overall survival (OS), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed using a Cox model. We also analyzed the prognostic value of KRAS exon 2 submutations.

RESULTS

Among 8460 patients, 11.4% had MSI-H status. In the MSI-H group, BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and double-wild-type statuses were detected in 40.6%, 18.1%, and 41.3%, respectively, whereas and in the microsatellite stable (MSS) group, these were detected in 7.7%, 38.6%, and 53.8%, respectively. In the MSS group, 5-year TTR rates of 61.8%, 66.3%, and 72.9% were observed among patients with BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and those who were DWT, respectively [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.58 and 1.31, both P < 0.001]. In the MSI-H group, 5-year TTR rates did not differ significantly among the mutated subgroups. Similar results were found for OS. However, survival after relapse was significantly shorter in the KRAS exon 2- and BRAFV600E-mutated patients in both MSS (adjusted HR = 2.06 and 1.15; both P < 0.05) and MSI-H (adjusted HR = 1.99 and 1.81; both P < 0.05) groups. In the MSS group, KRAS exon 2 mutations were associated with TTR, but only p.G12C, p.G12D, and p.G13D were associated with poor outcomes after disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing for both KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III patients should be considered as they can better define individual patient prognosis, and may also enable patient selection for (neo)adjuvant trials dedicated to specific molecular subtypes with poor prognosis.

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 24th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2022

This article summarises expert discussion on the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 24th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, July 2022. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to ensure an optimal diagnosis and staging of HCC, planning of curative and therapeutic options, including surgical, embolisation, ablative strategies, or systemic therapy. Furthermore, in many patients with HCC, underlying liver cirrhosis represents a challenge and influences the therapeutic options.

A randomized controlled trial of hand/foot-cooling by hilotherapy to prevent oxaliplatin-related peripheral neuropathy in patients with malignancies of the digestive system

BACKGROUND

Both acute and chronic symptoms of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) affect patients' treatment dose and duration as well as quality-of-life. Hand/foot-cooling has been shown to reduce taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy but there is unclear evidence in the setting of oxaliplatin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a monocentric, open-label phase II trial, patients with malignancies of the digestive system receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either continuous cooling of hands and feet using hilotherapy at 11°C during oxaliplatin infusion compared with usual care (no cooling). The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 neuropathy-free rate in 12 weeks after initiation of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included OIPN-related treatment alterations, acute OIPN symptoms and perceived comfort of the intervention.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population included 39 patients in the hilotherapy group and 38 in the control group. The grade ≥2 neuropathy-free rate at 12 weeks was 100% in the experimental group versus 80.5% in the control group (P = 0.006). This effect was persistent at 24 weeks (66.0% versus 49.2%, respectively) (P = 0.039). Next, treatment alterations-free rate at week 12 was 93.5% in the hilotherapy group compared with 83.3% in the control group (P = 0.131). Patients in the hilotherapy group experienced significantly less acute OIPN symptoms of numbness or tingling [odds ratio (OR) 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.11, P < 0.0001], pain (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.15, P < 0.0001) and/or cold sensitivity (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.05, P < 0.0001) in fingers or toes as well as less pharyngeal cold sensitivity (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.42, P = 0.0005). The majority of patients in the hilotherapy group rated the intervention as neutral, rather comfortable or very comfortable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first study on hand/foot-cooling in oxaliplatin alone, hilotherapy significantly reduced the incidence of grade ≥2 OIPN at 12 and 24 weeks. Hilotherapy also reduced acute OIPN symptoms and was generally well tolerated.

Fluoropyrimidine-induced hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity: recommendations for the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are an essential part of the majority of systemic regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of the oral FP S-1 has been approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with or without bevacizumab, for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC in whom it is not possible to continue treatment with another FP due to hand-foot syndrome (HFS) or cardiovascular toxicity (CVT). Subsequently, this indication has been included in the 2022 ESMO guidelines for metastatic CRC. Recommendations for use in daily practice are not available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Based on peer-reviewed published data on the use of S-1 in Western patients with metastatic CRC who switched from infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine to S-1 for reasons of HFS or CVT, recommendations for its use were formulated by an international group of medical oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic CRC and a cardio-oncologist.

RESULTS

In patients who experience pain and/or functional impairment due to HFS during treatment with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU, a switch to S-1 is recommended without prior dose reduction of capecitabine/5-FU. S-1 should preferably be initiated at full dose when HFS has decreased to grade ≤1. In patients with cardiac complaints, in whom an association with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU treatment cannot be excluded, capecitabine/5-FU should be discontinued and a switch to S-1 is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should guide clinicians in daily practice in the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with FP-containing regimens.

Pooled safety analysis from phase III studies of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed clinical benefit, including improved survival and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal (mCRC) or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mGC/GEJC) cancer in the phase III RECOURSE and TAGS trials, respectively. A pooled analysis was conducted to further characterize FTD/TPI safety, including management of haematologic toxicities and use in patients with renal or hepatic impairment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adults with ≥2 prior regimens for advanced mGC/GEJC or mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to FTD/TPI [35 mg/m² twice daily days 1-5 and 8-12 (28-day cycle); same dosage in both trials] or placebo plus best supportive care. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose) and analysed by renal/hepatic function.

RESULTS

TAGS and RECOURSE included 335 and 533 FTD/TPI-treated and 168 and 265 placebo-treated patients, respectively. Overall safety of FTD/TPI was similar in TAGS and RECOURSE. Haematologic (neutropenia, anaemia) and gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhoea) AEs were most commonly observed. Laboratory-assessed grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 37% (TAGS)/38% (RECOURSE) of FTD/TPI-treated patients (median onset: 29 days/55 days), and 96% (TAGS)/97% (RECOURSE) of cases resolved regardless of renal/hepatic function. Supportive medications for neutropenia were received by 17% (TAGS) and 9% (RECOURSE); febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% and 4%, respectively. Overall grade ≥3 AEs were more frequent in patients with moderate renal impairment [81% (TAGS); 85% (RECOURSE)] versus normal renal function (74%; 67%); anaemia and neutropenia were more common in patients with renal impairment. FTD/TPI safety (including haematologic AEs) was consistent across patients with normal and mildly impaired hepatic function.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support FTD/TPI as a well-tolerated treatment in patients with mGC/GEJC or mCRC, with a consistent safety profile. Safety was largely similar in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal/hepatic function; however, patients with renal impairment should be monitored for haematologic toxicities.

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients and methods

Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m² 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m² 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m² b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAF^wt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented.

Results

Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAF^wt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related).

Conclusions

Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAF^wt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

•

MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial of novel combinations in predefined subgroups of patients with mCRC.

•

In cohort 2 (BRAF^wt mCRC), adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab (bev) first-line maintenance therapy did not improve PFS or OS versus FP/bev.

•

ORR and DCR were numerically but not statistically significantly higher with atezolizumab + FP/bev versus FP/bev.

•

The safety profile of atezolizumab + FP/bev was consistent with previous findings with no new safety signals identified.

•

Findings from MODUL cohort 2 indicate that immunotherapy has limited efficacy in patients with microsatellite stable mCRC.

Tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (RATIONALE 302): impact on health-related quality of life

Background

RATIONALE 302 (NCT03430843) an open-label, phase III study of second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), reported that tislelizumab, relative to investigator-chosen chemotherapy (ICC), was associated with improvements in overall survival and a favorable safety profile. This study assessed the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ESCC-related symptoms of patients in RATIONALE 302.

Methods

Adults with advanced/metastatic ESCC whose disease progressed following prior systemic therapy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either tislelizumab or ICC (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Oesophageal Cancer Module 18 items (QLQ-OES18), and the EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale. Mixed effect modeling for repeated measurements examined changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 18. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to examine time to deterioration.

Results

Overall, 512 patients were randomized to tislelizumab (n = 256) or ICC (n = 256). The tislelizumab arm maintained QLQ-C30 global health status/quality whereas the ICC arm worsened at week 12 {difference in least square (LS) mean change: 5.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-9.5], P = 0.0028} and week 18 [difference in LS mean change: 8.1 (95% CI: 3.4-12.8), P = 0.0008]. Physical functioning (week 18) and fatigue (weeks 12 and 18) worsened less in the tislelizumab compared with the ICC arm. The tislelizumab arm improved in reflux symptoms, whereas the ICC worsened at week 12 [difference in LS mean change: −4.1 (95% CI: −7.6 to −0.6), P = 0.0229]. The visual analogue scale remained consistent in the tislelizumab arm whereas it worsened in the ICC arm. The hazard of time to deterioration was lower in tislelizumab patients compared with ICC for physical functioning and reflux.

Conclusions

HRQoL, including fatigue symptoms and physical functioning, was maintained in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC receiving tislelizumab compared with ICC-treated patients. These results provide additional support for the benefits of tislelizumab in this patient population.

•

Global health status and HRQoL remained consistent in the tislelizumab arm whereas the ICC arm experienced worsening.

•

Fatigue and physical functioning worsened in both arms; however, the worsening was greater in the ICC arm.

•

The tislelizumab arm was at lower risk of reaching the threshold for worsening in physical functioning and reflux.

Effect of KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutations on survival with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

KRAS gene mutations can predict prognosis and treatment response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

We undertook a meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RECOURSE, TERRA and J003) to investigate the impact of KRAS mutations in codons 12 or 13 on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for refractory mCRC.

Results

A total of 1375 patients were included, of whom 478 had a KRAS codon 12 mutation and 130 had a KRAS codon 13 mutation. In univariate analyses, the absence of a KRAS codon 12 mutation was found to significantly increase the OS benefit of FTD/TPI relative to placebo compared with the presence of the mutation {hazard ratio (HR), 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.72] versus 0.86 (0.70-1.05), respectively; interaction P = 0.0206}. Multivariate analyses showed that taking confounding factors into account reduced the difference in treatment effect between the presence and the absence of KRAS codon 12 mutations, confirming that treatment benefit was maintained in patients with [HR, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.59-0.89)] and without [HR, 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54-0.74)] codon 12 mutations (interaction P = 0.2939). KRAS mutations in codon 13 did not reduce the OS benefit of FTD/TPI relative to placebo, and, furthermore, KRAS mutations at either codon 12 or codon 13 did not affect the progression-free survival benefit.

Conclusions

Treatment with FTD/TPI produced a survival benefit, relative to placebo, regardless of KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutation status in patients with previously treated mCRC.

●

KRAS mutations are associated with negative outcomes in patients with mCRC; codon 12 and 13 mutations are the most common.

●

FTD/TPI was associated with longer median overall survival vs placebo both in patients with wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS.

●

FTD/TPI produced a survival benefit, relative to placebo, regardless of KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutation status in this patient group.

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC

Background

In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments.

Patients and methods

BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator’s choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration.

Results

Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales.

Conclusions

In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

•

BEACON CRC compares encorafenib + cetuximab ± binimetinib to chemotherapy in previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC.

•

Encorafenib + cetuximab had longer time to 10% deterioration versus control in QoL and functional well-being scales.

•

Encorafenib + cetuximab ± binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

Management of adverse events from the treatment of encorafenib plus cetuximab for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: insights from the BEACON CRC study

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.

Quality of life with first-line pembrolizumab for PD-L1-positive advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from the randomised phase III KEYNOTE-062 study

BACKGROUND

In the randomised phase III KEYNOTE-062 study, pembrolizumab was non-inferior to chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. We present findings of prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) analyses for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HRQOL, a secondary endpoint, was measured in patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 HRQOL questionnaire [European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-question quality-of-life (QLQ-C30), EORTC 22-question quality-of-life gastric-cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22)]. Least squares mean (LSM) change (baseline to week 18) in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL; EORTC QLQ-C30) and time to deterioration (TTD) in GHS/QOL, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) and abdominal pain/discomfort scores (EORTC QLQ-STO22) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The HRQOL population comprised 495 patients with CPS ≥1 (pembrolizumab, 252; chemotherapy, 243). Compliance rates at week 18 were similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (EORTC QLQ-C30, 87.9% and 81.9%; EORTC QLQ-STO22, 87.9% and 81.3%, respectively). There was no between-arm difference in LSM score change in GHS/QOL [-0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.01 to 4.69; P = 0.948]. The LSM score change for most subscales showed comparable worsening in both arms. TTD for GHS/QOL [hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = 0.826], appetite loss (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = 0.314) and pain (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.78-1.91; P = 0.381) were similar between arms. Longer TTD was observed for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

HRQOL was maintained with first-line treatment with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer and was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in this population.

Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo for third or later lines of treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: an exploratory subgroup analysis from the TAGS study

BACKGROUND

Metastatic gastric cancer and cancer of the esophagogastric junction (GC/EGJ) is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In the TAGS study, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in heavily pre-treated patients. This unplanned, exploratory subgroup analysis of the TAGS study aimed to clarify outcomes when FTD/TPI was used as third-line (3L) treatment and fourth- or later-line (4L+) treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were divided into a 3L group (126 and 64 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively) and 4L+ group (211 and 106 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively). Endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) deterioration to ≥2, and safety.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between FTD/TPI and placebo for 3L and 4L+ treatment. Median OS (mOS) for FTD/TPI versus placebo was: 6.8 versus 3.2 months {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.68 (0.47-0.97), P = 0.0318} in the 3L group; and 5.2 versus 3.7 months [0.73 (0.55-0.95), P = 0.0192] in the 4L+ group. Median PFS for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 3.1 versus 1.9 months [0.54 (0.38-0.77), P = 0.0004] in the 3L group; and 1.9 versus 1.8 months [0.57 (0.44-0.74), P < 0.0001] in the 4L+ group. Time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 4.8 versus 2.0 months [HR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.86), P = 0.0049] in the 3L group; and 4.0 versus 2.5 months [0.75 (0.57-0.98), P = 0.0329] in the 4L+ group. The safety of FTD/TPI was consistent in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in patients with GC/EGJ in third and later lines with a survival benefit that seems slightly superior in 3L treatment. When FTD/TPI is taken in 3L as recommended in the international guidelines, physicians can expect to provide patients with an mOS of 6.8 months.

Molecular determinants of clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel in a randomized, open-label, phase III trial in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial (NCT02370498), pembrolizumab did not significantly improve overall survival versus paclitaxel as second-line therapy for gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 tumors. The association of tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status and clinical outcomes was determined, including the relationship with CPS and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In patients with whole exome sequencing (WES) data [420/592 (71%); pembrolizumab, 218; paclitaxel, 202], the association of tTMB with objective response rate (ORR; logistic regression), progression-free survival (PFS; Cox proportional hazards regression), and overall survival (OS; Cox proportional hazards regression) were measured using one-sided (pembrolizumab) and two-sided [paclitaxel] P values. tTMB was also evaluated using FoundationOne®CDx [205/592 (35%)]. Prespecified equivalent cut-offs of 175 mut/exome for WES and 10 mut/Mb for FoundationOne®CDx were used.

RESULTS

WES-tTMB was significantly associated with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated (all P < 0.001) but not paclitaxel-treated patients (all P > 0.6) in univariate analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for WES-tTMB and response was 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.81] for pembrolizumab and 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.63) for paclitaxel in univariate analysis. There was low correlation between WES-tTMB and CPS in both treatment groups (r ≤ 0.16). WES-tTMB remained significantly associated with all clinical endpoints with pembrolizumab after adjusting for CPS and with PFS and OS after excluding known MSI-H tumors (n = 26). FoundationOne®CDx-tTMB demonstrated a positive association with ORR, PFS, and OS in pembrolizumab-treated patients (all P ≤ 0.003) but not PFS or OS in paclitaxel-treated patients (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSION

This exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-061 is the first to demonstrate a strong association between tTMB and efficacy with pembrolizumab but not paclitaxel in patients with gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma in a randomized setting. Data further suggest tTMB is a significant and independent predictor beyond PD-L1 status.

Ibrutinib in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: phase III RESOLVE study

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits antitumor activity through tumor microenvironment modulation. The safety and efficacy of first-line ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine treatment in patients with PDAC were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RESOLVE (NCT02436668) was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients (histologically-confirmed PDAC; stage IV diagnosis ≥6 weeks of randomization; Karnofsky performance score ≥70) were randomized to once-daily oral ibrutinib (560 mg) or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m²) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 424 patients were randomized (ibrutinib arm, n = 211; placebo arm, n = 213). Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. After a median follow-up of 25 months, there was no significant difference in OS between ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median of 9.7 versus 10.8 months; P = 0.3225). PFS was shorter for ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine compared with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median 5.3 versus 6.0 months; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 29% and 42%, respectively (P = 0.0058). Patients in the ibrutinib arm had less time on treatment and received lower cumulative doses for all agents compared with the placebo arm. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events for ibrutinib versus placebo arms included neutropenia (24% versus 35%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (17% versus 8%), and anemia (16% versus 17%). Primary reasons for any treatment discontinuation were disease progression and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine did not improve OS or PFS for patients with PDAC. Safety was consistent with known profiles for these agents.

Neutropenia and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil in the RECOURSE and J003 trials

Background:

The phase II J003 (N = 169) and phase III RECOURSE (N = 800) trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival with trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This post hoc analysis investigated pharmacokinetic data of FTD/TPI exposure and pharmacodynamic markers, such as chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and clinical outcomes.

Patients and methods:

A total of 210 patients from RECOURSE were enrolled in this substudy. A limited sampling approach was used, with three pharmacokinetic samples drawn on day 12 of cycle 1. Patients were categorized as being above or below the median area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) for FTD and TPI. We conducted a post hoc analysis using the entire RECOURSE population to determine the correlations between CIN and clinical outcome. We then carried out a similar analysis on the J003 trial to validate the results.

Results:

In the RECOURSE subset, patients in the high FTD AUC group had a significantly increased CIN risk. Analyses of the entire population demonstrated that FTD/TPI-treated patients with CIN of any grade in cycles 1 and 2 had significantly longer median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than patients who did not develop CIN and patients in the placebo group. Patients who required an FTD/TPI treatment delay had increased OS and PFS versus those in the placebo group and those who did not develop CIN. Similar results were obtained in the J003 cohort.

Conclusions:

In RECOURSE, patients with higher FTD drug exposure had an increased CIN risk. FTD/TPI-treated patients who developed CIN had improved OS and PFS versus those in the placebo group and those who did not develop CIN. Similar findings were reported in the J003 cohort, thus validating the RECOURSE results. The occurrence of CIN may be a useful predictor of treatment outcomes for FTD/TPI-treated patients.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT01607957 (RECOURSE).

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center number:

JapicCTI-090880 (J003).