Biologic therapy in esophageal and gastric malignancies: Current therapies and future directions

Biologic agents, including targeted antibodies as well as immunomodulators, are demonstrating unparalleled development and study across the entire spectrum of human malignancy. This review summarizes the current state of biologic therapies for esophageal, esophagogastric, and gastric malignancies, including those that target human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), c-Met, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) and immunomodulators. We focus primarily on agents that have been included in phase II and III clinical trials in locally advanced, progressive, or metastatic esophageal and gastric malignancies. At this time, only two biologic therapies are recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN): trastuzumab for patients with esophageal/esophagogastric or gastric adenocarcinomas with HER2 overexpression and ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, as a second-line therapy for metastatic disease. However, recent reports of increases in overall and progression-free survival for agents including pertuzumab, apatinib, and pembrolizumab will likely increase the use of targeted biologic therapy in clinical practice for esophageal and gastric malignancies

Targeting colorectal cancer with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies: focus on panitumumab

The tumor biology targeted therapies have improved outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors represent one of these successful strategies. EGFR is frequently overexpressed in CRCs and associated with a malignant phenotype. Two EGFR inhibitors have shown efficacy in metastatic CRC, cetuximab and panitumumab. Cetuximab is a human–mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody that binds to the extracellular domain of the EGF-receptor. Similarly, panitumumab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG2 antibody, directed against EGFR. Being fully humanized, panitumumab does not contain mouse protein reducing the risk of hypersensitivity. In a pivotal clinical trial, panitumumab was well tolerated and effective, demonstrating an objective response rate of 10% vs best supportive care (ORR = 0%; P < 0.0001). Panitumumab was approved for the treatment of mCRC by the FDA in 2006. Studies combining panitumumab with cytotoxic chemotherapy and other targeted therapies have been completed while others are ongoing to further evaluate the clinical utility of this agent. Recently it has been demonstrated that mutations in KRAS predict the efficacy of panitumumab and cetuximab, limiting their use to CRC patients with wild-type KRAS, and moving the clinical field towards personalized cancer care

Immune checkpoints and immunotherapy for colorectal cancer

cance

Treatment utilization and outcomes in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: A review of the National Cancer Database

For elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, therapeutic approaches and outcomes in a modern cohort are not well characterized. Patients ≥70 years old with clinical stage II and III esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2012 were identified from the National Cancer Database and stratified based on treatment type. Variables associated with treatment utilization were evaluated using logistic regression and survival evaluated using Cox proportional hazards analysis. Propensity matching (1:1) was performed to help account for selection bias. A total of 21,593 patients were identified. Median and maximum ages were 77 and 90, respectively. Treatment included palliative therapy (24.3%), chemoradiation (37.1%), trimodality therapy (10.0%), esophagectomy alone (5.6%), or no therapy (12.9%). Age ≥80 (OR 0.73), female gender (OR 0.81), Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥2 (OR 0.82), and high-volume centers (OR 0.83) were associated with a decreased likelihood of palliative therapy versus no treatment. Age ≥80 (OR 0.79) and Clinical Stage III (OR 0.33) were associated with a decreased likelihood, while adenocarcinoma histology (OR 1.33) and nonacademic cancer centers (OR 3.9), an increased likelihood of esophagectomy alone compared to definitive chemoradiation. Age ≥80 (OR 0.15), female gender (OR 0.80), and non-Caucasian race (OR 0.63) were associated with a decreased likelihood, while adenocarcinoma histology (OR 2.10) and high-volume centers (OR 2.34), an increased likelihood of trimodality therapy compared to definitive chemoradiation. Each treatment type demonstrated improved survival compared to no therapy: palliative treatment (HR 0.49) to trimodality therapy (HR 0.25) with significance between all groups. Any therapy, including palliative care, was associated with improved survival; however, subsets of elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer are less likely to receive aggressive therapy. Care should be taken to not unnecessarily deprive these individuals of treatment that may improve survival

A first-in-human study of AMG 208, an oral MET inhibitor, in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

BackgroundThis first-in-human study evaluated AMG 208, a small-molecule MET inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors.MethodsThree to nine patients were enrolled into one of seven AMG 208 dose cohorts (25, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, and 400 mg). Patients received AMG 208 orally on days 1 and days 4-28 once daily. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of AMG 208.ResultsFifty-four patients were enrolled. Six dose-limiting toxicities were observed: grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase (200 mg), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (200 mg), grade 4 acute myocardial infarction (300 mg), grade 3 prolonged QT (300 mg), and two cases of grade 3 hypertension (400 mg). The MTD was not reached. The most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was anemia (n = 3) followed by hypertension, prolonged QT, and thrombocytopenia (two patients each). AMG 208 exposure increased linearly with dose; mean plasma half-life estimates were 21.4-68.7 hours. One complete response (prostate cancer) and three partial responses (two in prostate cancer, one in kidney cancer) were observed.ConclusionsIn this study, AMG 208 had manageable toxicities and showed evidence of antitumor activity, particularly in prostate cancer

Multi-Institutional experience with FOLFIRINOX in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Combination chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin) was shown to be effective in a large phase III trial. The purpose of this study was to examine the tolerance and effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as practiced outside of the confines of a clinical trial and to document any dose modifications used by practicing oncologists. Data on patients with all stages of pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with FOLFIRINOX at three institutions was analyzed for efficacy, tolerance, and use of any dose modifications. Total of 61 patients was included in this review. Median age was 58 years (range: 37 to 72 years), 33 were male (54.1%) and majority had ECOG performance of 0 or 1 (86.9%, 53 patients). Thirty-eight (62.3%) had metastatic disease, while 23 (37.7%) were treated for locally advanced or borderline resectable disease. Patients were treated with a median number of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX, with dose modifications in 58.3% (176/302) of all cycles. Ten patients had stable disease (16.4%), four had a partial response (6.6%) while eight had progressive disease (13.1%) on best imaging following therapy. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.5 months and 13.5 months, respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia at 19.7% (12 cases), with 4.9% (3 cases) rate of febrile neutropenia. Twenty-one patients (34.4%) were hospitalized as a result of therapy but there were no therapy-related deaths. Twenty-three (37.7%) had therapy eventually discontinued as a result of adverse events. Despite substantial rates of adverse events and use of dose modifications, FOLFIRINOX was found to be clinically effective in both metastatic and non-metastatic patients. Regimen toxicity did not detract from overall response and survival

Phase Ib/II study combining tosedostat with capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the aminopeptidase inhibitor tosedostat with capecitabine in advanced PDAC. Methods: We conducted a phase Ib/II trial of tosedostat with capecitabine as second-line therapy for advanced PDAC. Planned enrollment was 36 patients. Eligible patients were treated with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled. Tosedostat 120 mg oral twice daily with capecitabine 1,000 mg/m Conclusions: Tosedostat with capecitabine displayed tolerable toxicity, and prolonged disease control in a subset of patients. These data encourage further exploration of aminopeptidase inhibitors in pancreatic cancer

Pacritinib to inhibit JAK/STAT signaling in refractory metastatic colon and rectal cancer

Background: Treatment options for patients with refractory colorectal cancer are limited and typically provide a chance of only modest benefit. The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefit of inhibiting the JAK/STAT inflammatory pathway with single agent pacritinib in patients with metastatic refractory colorectal adenocarcinoma. Methods: A single arm institutional trial was initiated and enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to at least two standard lines of treatment. Pacritinib 400 mg daily was administered orally continuously in 28 day cycles. Results: The trial was discontinued prior to reaching the planned accrual due to an FDA hold on pacritinib and a lack of treatment benefit. Eleven patients were enrolled and seven were evaluated for response. Median baseline C-reactive protein level was 12.1 (2.1-147) mg/L. One patient had stable disease at eight weeks by RECIST criteria and six progressed. There were no grade 4 or 5 adverse events while patients were on study. The grade 2 and lower AE events experienced were consistent with prior pacritinib trials. Conclusions: In seven evaluable patients there were no objective responses. The trial was discontinued prior to completing planned accrual based on a low likelihood that the progression free survival goal of 4 months would be met

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator‐initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand‐alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease‐oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.This commentary assesses the factors necessary for the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs. The metrics presented here may be useful as a rubric for new and established programs.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/1/onco12106-sup-0001-suppinfo1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/2/onco12106.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139928/3/onco12106-sup-0002-suppinfo2.pd