Published papers

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. METHODS: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. RESULTS: Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96-1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08-1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70-0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60-0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58-1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63-1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided 'only' tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83-1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97-1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47-0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67-1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28-0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28-0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.

Background: We conduct the SCRUM-Japan MONSTAR-SCREEN, a nationwide molecular profiling project to facilitate the enrollment of patients with advanced solid tumors into matched clinical trials based on identified biomarkers. Here, we investigated clinical outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal cancers in this project. Methods: The SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN was launched for gastrointestinal cancers in 2015, followed by GOZILA, MONSTAR-SCREEN-1, and MONSTAR-SCREEN-2 for advanced solid tumors. The used profiling assay for genomic alterations was Oncomine Comprehensive Assay for tumor tissue in GI-SCREEN, Guardant360 for plasma in GOZILA, FoundationOne CDx for tissue and FoundationOne Liquid CDx for plasma in MONSTAR-SCREEN-1, and CARIS MI Profile for tissue in MONSTAR-SCREEN-2. Patients were treated in clinical trials or practice based on identified biomarkers. We analyzed data from patients with gastrointestinal cancers in this project. Results: Of 11,408 patients enrolled in our project as of May 22, 2023, 555 (5.0%) were enrolled in matched clinical trials based on identified biomarkers. The major cancer types that had matched clinical trials included colorectal (63.2%), biliary tract (12.4%), gastric (n=9.2%), esophageal (n=6.5%), and pancreatic cancer (n=4.7%). The objective response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival, and median overall survival (OS) for patients in matched trials were 27.8% (95% CI, 24.0% to 31.9%), 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.7 months), and 14.4 months (95% CI, 13.0 to 16.1). The major treatment lines in which investigational drugs were administered were third (24.6%) and fourth (16.0%) line. Evaluating by each drug target given to at least 20 patients, therapies targeting HER2 had the highest ORR of 46%, followed by PD-1/PD-L1 (33%), BRAF (30%), and MEK (28%). Antibody-drug conjugates demonstrated the highest ORR with 48.8%, followed by monoclonal antibodies at 37.7% and small molecule inhibitors at 23.0%. Overall, patients who received matched therapy in clinical trials or practice had significantly longer OS than those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.84; P,0.01). Conclusions: Our nationwide molecular profiling project has facilitated the enrollment of patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers in clinical trials. Furthermore, it demonstrated a survival benefit by providing patients matching targeted therapy. Research Sponsor: None.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) appeared active in single-arm trials for patients with chemoresistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring microsatellite instability (MSI). Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this setting, we evaluated the effect size of ICIs using intra-patients comparison and ARCAD database as historical controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual-patient data from NIPICOL and CheckMate 142 phase II trials that evaluated a combination of ICIs for MSI mCRC patients (N = 176) and from five non-ICI mCRC historical RCTs in second-line or latter (N = 4026) were analyzed. Firstly, promising of ICIs was identified using intra-patient comparison based on growth modulation index (GMI) defined the ratio of progression-free survivals (PFS) on ICIs and previous line of therapy. Survival outcomes of ICIs-treated patients were then compared with those matched non-ICIs treated from ARCAD database historical RCTs. RESULTS: Among ICIs-treated patients, median PFS on ICIs was 32.66 (range 0.10-74.25) versus 4.07 months (range 0.7-49.87) on prior therapy, resulting on median GMI of 4.97 (range 0.07-59.51; hazard-ratio (HR)= 0.16 (95 %CI=0.11-0.22, P < 0.001)). Compared to matched non-ICI patients, in third-line, median overall survival (OS) was not reached with ICIs versus 3.52 months with placebo (HR=0.20, 95 %CI=0.10-0.41, P < 0.001), and 6.51 months with active drugs (HR=0.30, 95 %CI=0.15-0.60, P = 0.001). In second-line, median OS was not reached with ICIs versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy+placebo (HR=0.12, 95 %CI=0.07-0.22, P < 0.001), and 16.3 months with chemotherapy+targeted therapy (HR=0.10, 95 %CI=0.05-0.19, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ICIs demonstrates high effect size for MSI mCRC patients in second-line and later. This work might be useful as an example of methodology to avoid RCTs when benefit from experimental therapy is likely to be high.

Cholangiocarcinoma is a biliary malignant tumor which can arise at any point of biliary tree. Surgical resection is the only curative treatment and chemotherapy is used for unresectable cases, but its prognosis is poor compared with other types of cancer. Recently, pembrolizumab (PEM), an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody, has become available for microsatellite instability (MSI)-high advanced cancers. Here, we report the use of PEM for MSI-high locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma. A 57-year-old man presented to our department with jaundice. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography showed a solitary 28-mm-diameter tumor deep in the anterior segment of the liver. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and intraductal ultrasonography showed narrowing of the common bile duct and absence of contrast in the right hepatic duct, and tumor invaded from hilar region of liver into left hepatic duct. We diagnosed this as double primary cancers, locally advanced intrahepatic and distal cholangiocarcinomas. The patient began gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin therapy as first-line treatment and gemcitabine in combination with S-1 therapy as second-line treatment. However, the tumor gradually grew (maximum 69 mm), intrahepatic metastasis appeared, and tumor marker increased. Because MSI-high was confirmed not only by biopsy specimens but also by liquid biopsy, the patient began PEM (200 mg per every 3 weeks). After 15 cycles of PEM were administered over about 10 months, size of tumor was reduced and tumor marker dramatically decreased. We experienced the rare case which PEM has been successfully used for MSI-high double primary cancers.

PURPOSE Genomic profiling programs have been implemented to apply next-generation sequencing (NGS) for facilitating trial enrollment. SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN is a large-scale genomic profiling program in advanced gastrointestinal cancers using a validated genomic assay with the goal of facilitating enrollment in targeted clinical trials, generating real-world data, and performing clinicogenomic analysis for biomarker discovery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Genotyping of tumor tissue samples from 5,743 patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers enrolled in GI-SCREEN was centrally performed with NGS. Patients were enrolled in matched trials of targeted agents affiliated with GI-SCREEN on the basis of genotyping results. RESULTS A total of 11 gastrointestinal cancers were included, with colorectal cancer being the most common. The median age ranged from 59 to 70.5 years across cancer types. Patients enrolled after initiation of first-line treatment had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than that before treatment initiation with a median survival time difference of 8.9 months and a hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 0.25 to 0.73 across cancer types, demonstrating an immortal time bias. One hundred and forty-nine patients received matched therapies in clinical trials on the basis of their identified alterations. Among patients with colorectal cancer harboring actionable alterations, the median OS was significantly longer in patients who received matched therapies in trials than in those who did not (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.01; P = .049). Cancer-specific pathway alterations were significantly associated with shorter survival and related to primary resistance to matched trial therapies. CONCLUSION Our genomic profiling program led to patient enrollment in targeted clinical trials and improved survival of patients with colorectal cancer who received matched therapies in clinical trials. To avoid immortal time bias, precautions are needed when using data from patients who have undergone NGS testing after initiation of the evaluated treatment line.

PURPOSE: BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS: Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard care regimen for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

BACKGROUND: Triplet and doublet regimens of encorafenib plus cetuximab with and without binimetinib, respectively, were approved in Japan for unresectable, metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer (mCRC) that had progressed after 1-2 prior chemotherapies. This early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV) study collected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from Japanese patients to ensure safety measures as appropriate. METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E mCRC who received the triplet or doublet regimens in Japan were selected for this study. ADRs were collected as spontaneous reports between November 27, 2020 and May 26, 2021. Serious ADRs were evaluated according to guidelines of the International Council for Harmonisation and the EudraVigilance list of Important Medical Event Terms. RESULTS: An estimated 550 Japanese patients with mCRC received the triplet or doublet regimens during the 6-month EPPV period. Overall, 101 and 42 patients reported ADRs and serious ADRs, respectively. No ADRs leading to death were reported. The most frequently reported ADRs were nausea (17 patients), serous retinal detachment (16), decreased appetite (12), diarrhea (11), and vomiting (11). Among the important identified/potential risks that are defined in the risk management plans for encorafenib and binimetinib, eye disorder-related ADRs were observed in 32 patients, rhabdomyolysis-related ADRs in 12, hemorrhage-related ADRs in 7, and hepatic dysfunction-related ADRs in 7. Of 22 patients with serious eye disorders, 20 recovered or were recovering during the EPPV period. CONCLUSION: The safety profile in this EPPV study was similar to that from the phase III BEACON CRC study and no new safety concerns were identified.

Encorafenib + cetuximab (EC) is approved for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on the BEACON phase 3 study. Historically, first-line treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC with chemotherapy regimens has had limited efficacy. The phase 3 BREAKWATER study investigated EC+mFOLFOX6 versus standard of care (SOC) in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E mCRC. The dual primary endpoint of progression-free survival is event driven; data were not mature at data cutoff. BREAKWATER met the other dual primary endpoint of objective response rate, demonstrating significant and clinically relevant improvement in objective response rate (EC+mFOLFOX6: 60.9%; SOC: 40.0%; odds ratio, 2.443; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.403-4.253; 99.8% CI: 1.019-5.855; one-sided P = 0.0008). Median duration of response was 13.9 versus 11.1 months. At this first interim analysis of overall survival, the hazard ratio was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.318-0.691; repeated CI: 0.166-1.322). Serious adverse event rates were 37.7% versus 34.6%. The safety profiles were consistent with those known for each agent. BREAKWATER demonstrated a significantly improved response rate that was durable for first-line EC+mFOLFOX6 versus SOC in patients with BRAF V600E mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04607421 .

Background First-line treatment with encorafenib plus cetuximab (EC) with or without chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil [mFOLFOX6]) for BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, an aggressive subtype with a poor prognosis, was compared with standard care (chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab) in an open-label, phase 3 trial, which showed significance regarding one of the two primary end points, objective response according to blinded independent central review (odds ratio for EC+mFOLFOX6 vs. standard care, 2.44; one-sided P<0.001). This result led to accelerated Food and Drug Administration approval of this investigational combination therapy for BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, including as first-line therapy. Data on progression-free survival (the second primary end point) and an updated interim analysis of overall survival are now available. Methods We randomly assigned patients with untreated BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or standard care. The two primary end points were objective response (reported previously) and progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review in the EC+mFOLFOX6 group and the standard-care group. The key secondary end point was overall survival. Results Significantly longer progression-free survival was seen with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 12.8 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68; P<0.001). In an interim analysis, overall survival was significantly longer with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 30.3 vs. 15.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.63; P<0.001). The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment was 46.1% with EC+mFOLFOX6 and 38.9% with standard care. Safety profiles were consistent with those known for each agent. Conclusions This trial showed significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival with first-line treatment with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care among patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Subset analyses from phase III evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition (EGFRi) suggest improved outcomes in patients with EGFR-amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA), but large-scale analyses are lacking. This multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the role of EGFRi in the largest cohort of patients with EGFR-amplified GEA to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients from 15 tertiary cancer centers in six countries met the inclusion criteria. These criteria required histologically confirmed GEA in the metastatic or unresectable setting with EGFR amplification identified by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved assay, and who received on- or off-protocol EGFRi. Testing could be by tissue next-generation sequencing, plasma circulating tumor DNA next-generation sequencing, and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization performed by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments approved laboratory. Treatment patterns and outcomes analysis was also performed using a deidentified clinicogenomic database (CGDB). RESULTS: Sixty patients with EGFR-amplified GEA received EGFRi, including 31 of 60 patients (52%) with concurrent chemotherapy. Across treatment lines, patients achieved a 43% objective response rate with a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.4). Patients receiving EGFRi in first-, second-, and third-line therapy achieved a median overall survival of 20.6 months (95% CI, 13.5 to not reached [NR]), 9 months (95% CI, 7.9 to NR), and 8.4 months (7.6 to NR), respectively. This survival far exceeded the 11.2-month (95% CI, 8.7 to 14.2) median overall survival from first-line initiation of non-EGFRi therapy in patients with EGFR-amplified GEA in the CGDB. Despite this benefit, analysis of the CGDB (January 2011-December 2020) suggests that only 5% of patients with EGFR-amplified GEA received EGFRi. CONCLUSION: Patients with EGFR-amplified GEA derive significant benefit from EGFRi. Further prospective investigation of EGFRi in a well-selected patient population is ongoing in an upcoming trial of amivantamab in EGFR and/or MET amplified GEA.