Randomized phase II trial of FOLFIRI-panitumumab compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with RAS wild-type circulating tumor DNA metastatic colorectal cancer beyond progression to first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab: the BEYOND study (GEMCAD 17-01)

Panitumumab plus FOLFOX (P-FOLFOX) is standard first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer. The value of panitumumab rechallenge is currently unknown. We assessed addition of panitumumab to FOLFIRI (P-FOLFIRI) beyond progression to P-FOLFOX in patients with no RAS mutations in liquid biopsy (LB).MethodsIn this randomized phase II trial, patients were assigned (3:2 ratio) to second-line P-FOLFIRI (arm A) or FOLFIRI alone (arm B). LB for circulating tumor DNA analysis was collected at study entry and at disease progression. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival. Two-stage Simon design required 85 patients to be included (EudraCT 2017-004519-38).ResultsBetween February 2019 and November 2020, 49 patients were screened (16 RAS mutations in LB detected) and 31 included (18 assigned to arm A and 13 to arm B). The study was prematurely closed due to inadequate recruitment. Serious adverse events were more frequent in arm A (44% vs. 23%). Overall response rate was 33% (arm A) vs. 7.7% (arm B). Six-month progression-free survival rate was 66.7% (arm A) and 38.5% (arm B). Median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (arm A) and 4.0 months (arm B) (hazard ratio, 0.58). At disease progression, RAS or BRAF mutations in LB were found in 4/11 patients (36%) in arm A and 2/10 (20%) in arm B.ConclusionsThe BEYOND study suggests a meaningful benefit of P-FOLFIRI beyond progression to P-FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with WT RAS status selected by LB. This strategy deserves further investigation. (AU)

Integrative immune transcriptomic classification improves patient selection for precision immunotherapy in advanced gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (GEA) treatment has been improved by the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), yet identifying predictive biomarkers remains a priority, particularly in patients with a combined positive score (CPS) < 5, where the benefit is less clear. Our study assesses certain immune microenvironment features related to sensitivity or resistance to CPIs with the aim of implementing a personalised approach across CPS < 5 GEA. DESIGN: Through integrative transcriptomic and clinicopathological analyses, we studied in both a retrospective and a prospective cohort, the immune tumour microenvironment features. We analysed the cell types composing the immune infiltrate highlighting their functional activity. RESULTS: This integrative study allowed the identification of four different groups across our patients. Among them, we identified a cluster whose tumours expressed the most gene signatures related to immunomodulatory pathways and immunotherapy response. These tumours presented an enriched immune infiltrate showing high immune function activity that could potentially achieve the best benefit from CPIs. Finally, our findings were proven in an external CPI-exposed population, where the use of our transcriptomic results combined with CPS helped better identify those patients who could benefit from immunotherapy than using CPS alone (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: This transcriptomic classification could improve precision immunotherapy for GEA.

Randomized phase II trial of FOLFIRI-panitumumab compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with RAS wild-type circulating tumor DNA metastatic colorectal cancer beyond progression to first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab: the BEYOND study (GEMCAD 17-01).

PURPOSE: Panitumumab plus FOLFOX (P-FOLFOX) is standard first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer. The value of panitumumab rechallenge is currently unknown. We assessed addition of panitumumab to FOLFIRI (P-FOLFIRI) beyond progression to P-FOLFOX in patients with no RAS mutations in liquid biopsy (LB). METHODS: In this randomized phase II trial, patients were assigned (3:2 ratio) to second-line P-FOLFIRI (arm A) or FOLFIRI alone (arm B). LB for circulating tumor DNA analysis was collected at study entry and at disease progression. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival. Two-stage Simon design required 85 patients to be included (EudraCT 2017-004519-38). RESULTS: Between February 2019 and November 2020, 49 patients were screened (16 RAS mutations in LB detected) and 31 included (18 assigned to arm A and 13 to arm B). The study was prematurely closed due to inadequate recruitment. Serious adverse events were more frequent in arm A (44% vs. 23%). Overall response rate was 33% (arm A) vs. 7.7% (arm B). Six-month progression-free survival rate was 66.7% (arm A) and 38.5% (arm B). Median progression-free survival was 11.0 months (arm A) and 4.0 months (arm B) (hazard ratio, 0.58). At disease progression, RAS or BRAF mutations in LB were found in 4/11 patients (36%) in arm A and 2/10 (20%) in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: The BEYOND study suggests a meaningful benefit of P-FOLFIRI beyond progression to P-FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with WT RAS status selected by LB. This strategy deserves further investigation.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2021)

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor, and is the sixth-leading cause of death from cancer. Incidence is rising in Spain, particularly among men. Two main pathological different subtypes have been described: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Growing evidence of their epidemiology and molecular differences explains their different response to novel treatments, and they are therefore likely to be treated as two separate entities in the near future. The best results are obtained with a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy, and the introduction of immunotherapy is a promising new approach that will improve prognosis. In these guidelines, we review the evidence for the different methods of diagnosis and therapeutic strategies that form the basis of our standard of care.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2021).

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor, and is the sixth-leading cause of death from cancer. Incidence is rising in Spain, particularly among men. Two main pathological different subtypes have been described: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Growing evidence of their epidemiology and molecular differences explains their different response to novel treatments, and they are therefore likely to be treated as two separate entities in the near future. The best results are obtained with a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy, and the introduction of immunotherapy is a promising new approach that will improve prognosis. In these guidelines, we review the evidence for the different methods of diagnosis and therapeutic strategies that form the basis of our standard of care.

Long-term results of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and combined chemoradiotherapy before surgery in the management of locally advanced oesophageal cancer: a single-centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery is an option in the treatment of locally advanced resectable oesophageal cancer (EC). However toxicity is substantial and the improvement in overall survival (OS) with this approach is controversial. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-centre study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy with CDDP and 5-FU and 50.4 Gy of external radiotherapy before possible radical surgery in patients with locally advanced resectable EC. If surgery was not possible, a second-phase radiotherapy boost of 10 Gy and one cycle of modified dose chemotherapy were used. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients included between 1998 and 2007: 96% males, median age 61, 83% squamous cell carcinomas, 23% lower third tumours, 36% stage II and 54% stage III and 47% local lymph node involvement. Eighty-six percent completed the combined protocol. Main grade 3-4 toxicities: mucositis (19%) and infections (8%); 4 toxic deaths. Clinical response rates: complete response 54%, partial response 27%, stable disease 8%. Twenty-five patients proceeded to surgery, with radical resection in 24. Pathological response rate: complete response 32%, partial response 52%, progression 16%. There were 7 postoperative deaths and 16 of 34 patients that did not have surgery received the second-phase RT boost. Survival analysis: Median follow-up of 64 months (range 6-134 months). Median OS of 10.33 months. 2-year and 5-year OS of 22 and 16%. The only significant prognostic factor in OS is the clinical complete response rate: 13.9 vs. 7.7 months (p=0.0049). CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol offers a high rate of clinical activity although it is relatively toxic and seems to increase the postoperative mortality, which would blunt any small improvement in survival. The achievement of a complete response is a powerful prognostic factor.