PURPOSE The positive BEACON colorectal cancer (CRC) safety lead-in, evaluating encorafenib + cetuximab + binimetinib in previously treated patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic CRC (mCRC), prompted the design of the phase II ANCHOR CRC study (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT03693170 ). ANCHOR CRC aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and quality of life with first-line encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab in BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC. METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC received oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily and binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles, plus intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 once on Day 1 of Cycle 1, then 250 mg/m2 once weekly for the first seven cycles, and 500 mg/m2 once on Days 1 and 15 from Cycle 8 onward. The primary end point was locally assessed confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and secondary end points included centrally assessed cORR, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), quality of life, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS Among 95 patients, the locally assessed cORR was 47.4% (95% CI, 37.0 to 57.9) with all partial responses. Since the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded 30%, the primary end point was met. With a median follow-up duration of 20.1 months, the median progression-free survival on the basis of local assessments was 5.8 months and the median OS was 18.3 months. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities. Using Patient Global Impression of Changes, substantial improvement in symptoms was consistently reported in ≥ 30% of patients from Cycle 3 to Cycle 10. CONCLUSION The ANCHOR CRC study showed that the scientifically driven combination of encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab was active in the first-line setting of BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC with a manageable safety profile. Further first-line evaluation is ongoing (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT04607421 ).
Background Immune check-point blockade (ICB) has shown clinical benefit in mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability high metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but not in mismatch repair-proficient/microsatellite stable patients. Cancer vaccines with autologous dendritic cells (ADC) could be a complementary therapeutic approach to ICB as this combination has the potential to achieve synergistic effects. Methods This was a Phase I/II multicentric study with translational sub-studies, to evaluate the safety, pharmacodynamics and anti-tumor effects of Avelumab plus ADC vaccine in heavily pre-treated MSS mCRC patients. Primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the efficacy of the combination. The primary end-point was 40% progression-free survival at 6 months with a 2 Simon Stage. Results A total of 28 patients were screened and 19 pts were included. Combined therapy was safe and well tolerated. An interim analysis (Simon design first-stage) recommended early termination because only 2/19 (11%) patients were disease free at 6 months. Median PFS was 3.1 months [2.1–5.3 months] and overall survival was 12.2 months [3.2–23.2 months]. Stimulation of immune system was observed in vitro but not clinically. The evaluation of basal RNA-seq noted significant changes between pre and post-therapy liver biopsies related to lipid metabolism and transport, inflammation and oxidative stress pathways. Conclusions The combination of Avelumab plus ADC vaccine is safe and well tolerated but exhibited modest clinical activity. Our study describes, for the first-time, a de novo post-therapy metabolic rewiring, that could represent novel immunotherapy-induced tumor vulnerabilities.
Background: Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) has the second highest mortality rate of all malignancies. Sequencing efforts on primary CRC (pCRC) have led to extensive knowledge about its genomic landscape. Because the molecular characteristics change over time and under treatment pressure, tumor characteristics of metastases can differ from those of the primary tumor. Therefore, better insight into the genomic alterations of metastatic CRC (mCRC) is key to improve treatment strategies.Methods: We investigated whole genome sequencing (WGS) data of metastases of 429 CRC patients participating in the CPCT-02 study (NCT01855477). Based on prior treatment data, patients were divided into a group who did and a group who did not receive systemic treatment prior to the moment the biopsy was taken. Our sequencing data was compared to publicly available data from pCRC. In addition, observed molecular patterns were associated with pretreatment regimens and clinical outcome. The potential value of WGS analysis for current clinical practice was explored.Results: Compared to pCRC we found that TP53, ZFP36L2, KRAS, and APC were more frequently mutated in mCRC whereas PIK3CA mutations were less frequent. Clear shifts in the relative contributions of mutational signatures were observed in mCRC compared to pCRC. We identified a subgroup of both pretreated and untreated mCRC samples characterized by signatures rarely found in pCRC (SBS9/39/41). Effects of prior treatment were observed in pretreated patients versus untreated patients on the total number of aberrations, mutational signatures, and CNVs. Based on their molecular landscape, 55% of the patients could qualify for on-or off-label FDAapproved targeted treatments. In addition to KRAS/NRAS and BRAF, mutations in FBXW7 were associated with poor response to EGFR-targeted treatments.Conclusions: Differences in driver genes and mutational signatures were observed between mCRC and pCRC, and genomic effects of prior treatment were observed in pretreated mCRC patients versus untreated patients. In conclusion, this study provides an unprecedentedly comprehensive insight into the molecular landscape of mCRC and identifies clinically useful genomic features for future patient management.Clinical trial identification: NCT01855477.
656 Background: Randomized clinical trials have established new chemotherapeutic standards of care for metastatic pancreatic cancer, namely FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GNP) after demonstrating a significant and relevant increase of overall survival. However, there are some important uncertainties regarding how many patients are candidate to each of the two new regimens in the real life and how is the pattern of use in the elderly population. Methods: This is a retrospective study. Departments of Pharmacy of 7 Spanish hospitals generated the listings of patients (pts) treated in first line with these new regimens (FFX or GNP). Non-metastatic patients were excluded. An exploratory analysis was performed in the elderly population. Results: From Jan 2012 to Dec 2017, a total of 119 pts (M/F 58/42 %) were treated. Med age 63 y (38-83 y), 99% adenocarcinoma. 40% located in the head of pancreas. ECOG 87% 0-1. 89% had liver mets. In the 1st line 49.6% were treated with FFX and 50.4% with GNP. 53% of the pts could receive a 2nd line (82% after FFX 75% after GNP). The median OS was 12 months with no statistically significant differences between both regimens (12,7m for FFX vs 10,2 m for GNP). Elevated Ca 19.9 levels and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increased the risk of death. Patients who received both regimens in first/second line had a median OS longer than 15 months whichever the sequence. 32 patients (27%) were older than 70 yo. 13 (41%) were treated with FFX and 19 (59%) with GNP. The median OS for patients older than 70 was 9.5m versus 12.3m for patients younger than 70. Conclusions: In our setting the use of FFX and GNP for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer is quite similar. Superiority could not be demonstrated for any of the schemes in first-line. Overall survival was determined by basal Ca 19.9 and NLR. Patients receiving both regimens (FFX or GNP) in first/second line whichever the sequence, exhibited the best survival rates. In our series elderly patients had poor survival rates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.