Targeted Therapies for Targeted Populations: Anti-EGFR Treatment for EGFR-Amplified Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Previous anti-EGFR trials in unselected patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) were resoundingly negative. We identified EGFR amplification in 5% (19/363) of patients at the University of Chicago, including 6% (8/140) who were prospectively screened with intention-to-treat using anti-EGFR therapy. Seven patients received ≥1 dose of treatment: three first-line FOLFOX plus ABT-806, one second-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, and three third/fourth-line cetuximab alone. Treatment achieved objective response in 58% (4/7) and disease control in 100% (7/7) with a median progression-free survival of 10 months. Pretreatment and posttreatment tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS), serial plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) NGS, and tumor IHC/FISH for EGFR revealed preexisting and/or acquired genomic events, including EGFR-negative clones, PTEN deletion, KRAS amplification/mutation, NRAS, MYC, and HER2 amplification, and GNAS mutations serving as mechanisms of resistance. Two evaluable patients demonstrated interval increase of CD3+ infiltrate, including one who demonstrated increased NKp46+, and PD-L1 IHC expression from baseline, suggesting an immune therapeutic mechanism of action. EGFR amplification predicted benefit from anti-EGFR therapy, albeit until various resistance mechanisms emerged.Significance: This paper highlights the role of EGFR inhibitors in EGFR-amplified GEA-despite negative results in prior unselected phase III trials. Using serial ctDNA and tissue NGS, we identified mechanisms of primary and acquired resistance in all patients, as well as potential contribution of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity to their clinical benefit. Cancer Discov; 8(6); 696-713. ©2018 AACR.See related commentary by Strickler, p. 679This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 663.

The Many Faces of Medication-Related Injury in the Gastrointestinal Tract.

Every year many new medications are approved for clinical use, several of which can cause clinically significant gastrointestinal tract toxicity. This article emphasizes the histologic features and differential diagnosis of drug-induced injury to the gastrointestinal mucosa. Ultimately, clinical correlation and cessation of a drug with resolution of symptoms are needed to definitively confirm a drug as a causative factor in mucosal injury. Recognizing histologic features in gastrointestinal biopsies, however, can allow surgical pathologists to play a key role in establishing a diagnosis of drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity.

Interobserver variability in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm subtypes and application of their mucin immunoprofiles.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm is considered a precursor lesion to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. These are further classified into four histologic subtypes: gastric, intestinal, pancreatobiliary, and oncocytic. The first aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability among five gastrointestinal pathologists in diagnosing intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm subtypes by morphology alone. The second aim of the study was to compare intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm subtypes, which received consensus diagnoses (≥80% agreement) with their respective mucin immunoprofiles (MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, and CDX2). A consensus histologic subtype was reached in 58% of cases (29/50) among the five gastrointestinal pathologists. Overall there was moderate agreement (κ=0.41, P<0.01) in subtyping intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms without the use of immunohistochemistry. The histologic subtype with the best interobserver agreement was intestinal type (κ=0.56, P<0.01) followed by pancreatobiliary, gastric, mixed, and oncocytic types (κ=0.43, P<0.01; κ=0.38, P<0.01; κ=0.17, P<0.01; κ=0.08, P<0.04, respectively). Both kappa values for mixed and oncocytic subtypes were likely artificially low due to the underrepresentation of these subtypes in this study and not a true indication of poor interobserver agreement. Following an intradepartmental consensus meeting between two gastrointestinal pathologists, 68% of cases (34/50) received a consensus intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm subtype. Sixty-nine percent of cases (11/16) that did not receive a consensus intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm subtype could be classified based on their respective immunoprofiles. Standardizing the use of immunohistochemistry with a mucin immunopanel (MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, and MUC6) may improve the agreement of diagnosing intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm histologic subtypes.