Prospective Statewide Study of Universal Screening for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: The Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative.

Hereditary cancer syndromes infer high cancer risks and require intensive surveillance. Identification of high-risk individuals among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) needs improvement. METHODS: Three thousand three hundred ten unselected adults who underwent surgical resection for primary invasive CRC were prospectively accrued from 51 hospitals across Ohio between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Universal Tumor screening (UTS) for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was performed for all, and pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) were identified using multigene panel testing (MGPT) in those who met at least one inclusion criterion: MMR deficiency, diagnosed < 50 years, multiple primary tumors (CRC or endometrial cancer), or with a first-degree relative with CRC or endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-five patients (15.9%) had MMR deficiency. Two hundred thirty-four of 3,310 (7.1%; 16% of the 1,462 who received MGPT) had 248 PGVs in cancer susceptibility genes. One hundred forty-two (4.3%) had a PGV in an MMR gene, and 101 (3.1%) had a PGV in a non-MMR gene. Ten with Lynch syndrome (LS) also had a non-MMR PGV and were included in both groups. Two (0.06%) had constitutional MLH1 hypermethylation. Of unexplained MMR-deficient patients, 88.4% (76 of 86) had double somatic MMR mutations. Testing for only MMR genes in MMR-deficient patients would have missed 18 non-MMR gene PGVs (7.3% of total PGVs identified). Had UTS been the only method used to screen for hereditary cancer syndromes, 38.6% (91 of 236) would have been missed, including 6.3% (9 of 144) of those with LS. These results have treatment implications as 5.3% (175 of 3,310) had PGVs in genes with therapeutic targets. CONCLUSION: UTS alone is insufficient for identifying a large proportion of CRC patients with hereditary syndromes, including some with LS. At a minimum, 7.1% of individuals with CRC have a PGV and pan-cancer MGPT should be considered for all patients with CRC.

Phase 2 study of treatment selection based on tumor thymidylate synthase expression in previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4203).

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had tumors with low thymidylate synthase (TS-L) expression would have a higher response rate to combined 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus bevacizumab (FOLFOX/Bev) than those with high TS (TS-H) expression and that combined irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX) plus bevacizumab (IROX/Bev) would be more effective than FOLFOX/Bev in those with TS-H tumors. METHODS: TS protein expression was determined in mCRC tissue. Patients who had TS-L tumors received FOLFOX/Bev, and those who had TS-H tumors were randomly assigned to receive either FOLFOX/Bev or IROX/Bev. The primary endpoint was the response rate (complete plus partial responses). RESULTS: In total, 211 of 247 patients (70% TS-H) were registered to the treatment phase. Efficacy analyses included eligible patients who had started treatment (N = 186). The response rates for patients who received IROX/Bev (TS-H), FOLFOX/Bev (TS-H), and FOLFOX/Bev (TS-L) were 33%, 38%, and 49%, respectively (P = nonsignificant). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12 months; 10 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 9 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 13 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-L group). The TS-L group had improved PFS compared with the TS-H group that received FOLFOX/Bev (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.4%; P = .04; Cox regression). The median overall survival (OS) was 22 months (95% CI, 20 29 months; 18 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 21 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 32 months in the TS-L group). OS comparisons for the 2 TS-H arms and for the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H versus TS-L arms were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TS expression was prognostic: Patients with TS-L tumors who received FOLFOX/Bev had a longer PFS than those with TS-H tumors, along with a trend toward longer OS. Patients with TS-H tumors did not benefit more from IROX/Bev than from FOLFOX/Bev. Cancer 2018;124:688-97. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of sorafenib and erlotinib or erlotinib alone in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.

Maintenance therapy with alternate-day prednisone improves survival in multiple myeloma patients.

The role of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma is controversial. Recent studies have shown an improvement in both progression-free and overall survival for patients receiving maintenance treatment with a combination of interferon and glucocorticoids, compared with interferon alone. The role of glucocorticoids alone as maintenance therapy has not been previously addressed. We compared alternate-day, oral prednisone at 2 different dose levels (10 mg versus 50 mg) for remission maintenance among previously untreated myeloma patients following a response to induction with standard-dose vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone with prednisone (VAD-P) or VAD-P plus quinine (VAD-P/Q). There were 250 eligible patients registered on Southwest Oncology Group study 9210 and randomized to receive VAD-P or VAD-P/Q. There were 125 patients achieving at least a 25% tumor reduction following induction therapy who were randomized to either physiologic (10 mg) or pharmacologic (50 mg) doses of alternate-day, oral prednisone until disease progression. At the time of study entry, patient characteristics were similar in VAD-P and VAD-P/Q patients and in the 2 arms randomized to maintenance therapy. After a median follow-up of 53 months, there was no difference in either progression-free or overall survival between the 2 induction regimens. However, from the time of maintenance randomization, both progression-free (14 versus 5 months; P =.003) and overall survival (37 versus 26 months; P =.05) were significantly improved in patients receiving 50 mg as compared with 10 mg alternate-day prednisone. There was no difference in treatment-related adverse events between the groups. Thus, 50 mg, oral, alternate-day prednisone is effective maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma patients who achieve a response to induction chemotherapy. (Blood. 2002;99:3163-3168)