NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Gemcitabine; Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de pàncrees metastàticGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de páncreas metastásicoBackground Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235. Findings Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4–19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0–12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3–10·6) with nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group. Interpretation Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC.Ipsen

ESP, EORTC, and EURACAN Expert Opinion:practical recommendations for the pathological diagnosis and clinical management of intermediate melanocytic tumors and rare related melanoma variants

The recent WHO classification of skin tumors has underscored the importance of acknowledging intermediate grade melanocytic proliferations. A multistep acquisition of oncogenic events drives the progressive transformation of nevi into melanomas. The various pathways described are modulated by the initial oncogenic drivers that define the common, blue, and Spitz nevi groups. Intermediate lesions are most often the result of a clonal evolution within such nevi. Based on this established classification, we have suggested for each pathway a practical diagnostic approach, benefiting from the recently developed molecular tools, both in the setting of general pathology labs and expert centers. Moreover, recommendations regarding the re-excision and clinical follow-up are given to support decision-making in multidisciplinary tumor boards

Time Until Partial Response in Metastatic Adrenocortical Carcinoma Long-Term Survivors

A partial response (PR) has been proposed as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). The primary endpoint of the study was to characterize the time until a PR in patients with metastatic ACC treated with a standard therapy is achieved. Long-term survivors were selected to allow evaluation of delayed tumor response to mitotane. Records from patients with metastatic ACC that survived for > 24 months were retrieved. Tumor response was analyzed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Time until a tumor response, after treatment initiation or therapeutic plasma mitotane level, was analyzed. Sixty-eight patients were analyzed. The first-line systemic therapy was mitotane as a monotherapy (M) (n = 57) or cytotoxic polychemotherapy plus/minus mitotane (PC ± M) (n = 11). The second-line therapy was M (n = 2) or PC ± M (n = 41). Thirty-two PRs occurred in 30/68 patients (44.1%): this was obtained for 13 (40.6%) during M and during PC ± M for 19/32 responders (59.4%). PRs were observed within 6 months of starting M or PC ± M in 76.9 and 94.7% of responses, respectively, within 6 months of therapeutic plasma mitotane being first observed in 88.9% of responses with M and in 53.3% of responses with PC ± M. All PRs (but one) occurred within 1 year after initiating treatment. To conclude, Most patients with metastatic ACC and long survival times had PRs within the first 6 months of standard systemic therapy, and almost all within the first year. The absence of response after that period could be considered as a treatment failure. Maintenance of mitotane therapy in non-responders after 1 year should be questioned in future randomized trials

Pembrolizumab in Asian patients with microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch-repair-deficient colorectal cancer

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 study evaluated pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab in patients with newly diagnosed, microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and safety. Here, we report results from the post hoc analysis of patients who were enrolled in Asia from the final analysis (FA) of KEYNOTE-177. A total of 48 patients from Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (pembrolizumab, n =?22; chemotherapy, n =?26) were included. At FA, median time from randomization to data cutoff (February 19, 2021) was 45.3 (range 38.1?57.8) months with pembrolizumab and 43.9 (range 36.6?55.1) months with chemotherapy. Median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 months?NR) with pembrolizumab versus 10.4 (95% CI 6.3?22.0) months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.26?1.20). Median OS was NR (range 13.8 months?NR) versus 30.0 (14.7?NR) months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27?1.55) and ORR was 50% (95% CI 28?72) versus 46% (95% CI 27?67). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by two patients (9%) in the pembrolizumab arm and 20 (80%) in the chemotherapy arm. Immune-mediated adverse events or infusion reactions were reported by six patients (27%) and 10 patients (40%), respectively. No deaths due to TRAEs occurred. These data support first-line pembrolizumab as a standard of care for patients from Asia with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02563002.FUNDING INFORMATION: The study was designed under the responsibility of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, in conjunction with the steering committee. The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Pembrolizumab was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This work was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. We thank the patients and their families and caregivers for participating in this trial, and all investigators and site personnel. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Jemimah Walker, PhD, Mehak Aggarwal, PharmD, and Doyel Mitra, PhD, CMPP, of ApotheCom (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

Vandetanib for the Treatment of Advanced Medullary Thyroid Cancer Outside a Clinical Trial: Results from a French Cohort

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that vandetanib treatment is effective in patients with metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), leading to regulatory approval, but its use may be associated with toxicities that require specific monitoring and management. The objective of the present study performed in France was to describe the toxicity profile and efficacy of vandetanib treatment when given outside any trial. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients were treated with vandetanib in the frame of a temporary use authorization (ATU) in France from August 2010 to February 2012, when the drug was available on request for patients with locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Patients were registered by the French health authorities, and characteristics, treatment parameters, toxicity profile, and efficacy were retrospectively reviewed. Eight patients were excluded from the analysis because vandetanib treatment was not administered (n=3), had been given in a trial before ATU (n=3), or was given for a non-MTC cancer (n=2). RESULTS: Data from the 60 MTC patients were analyzed. Mean age was 58 years (range 11-83 years), 39 patients were male, and six had hereditary MTC. Fifty-six (93%) had metastatic disease in the mediastinum (82%), bones (65%), liver (53%), or lung (53%), and four had only locally advanced disease. At the time of study evaluation, with a median follow-up of 20 months and a median duration of treatment of 9.7 months (range 0.3-36 months), 15 patients were continuing vandetanib treatment (range 18-36 months). Median progression-free survival was 16.1 months. Twenty-five patients discontinued treatment for disease progression (range 0.3-29 months). Best tumor response was a complete response in one patient, a partial response in 12 (20%), stable disease in 33 (55%), and progression in seven patients (12%). All patients had at least one adverse event (AE) during treatment. The main AEs were skin toxicity, diarrhea, and asthenia. Sixteen patients (27%) discontinued treatment for toxicity, and one patient died from vandetanib-induced cardiac toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Vandetanib is an effective option for patients with advanced MTC. AEs should be monitored carefully and should be minimized by educating both patients and care providers and by applying symptomatic treatment and dose reduction

A Randomized Study of Lenvatinib 18 mg vs 24 mg in Patients With Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Background: Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved to treat radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) at a starting dose of 24 mg/day. This study explored, in a double-blinded fashion, whether a starting dose of 18 mg/day would provide comparable efficacy with reduced toxicity. Methods: Patients with RR-DTC were randomized to lenvatinib 24 mg/day or 18 mg/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the odds ratio noninferiority margin was 0.4. The primary safety endpoint was frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as of week 24. Tumors were assessed using RECIST v1.1. TEAEs were monitored and recorded. Results: The ORRwk24 was 57.3% (95% CI 46.1, 68.5) in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 40.3% (95% CI 29.3, 51.2) in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, with an odds ratio (18/24 mg) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.26, 0.96). As of week 24, the rates of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 61.3% in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 57.1% in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, a difference of -4.2% (95% CI -19.8, 11.4). Conclusion: A starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to a starting dose of 24 mg/day as assessed by ORRwk24 in patients with RR-DTC. The results represent a clinically meaningful difference in ORRwk24. The safety profile was comparable, with no clinically relevant difference between arms. These results support the continued use of the approved starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC and adjusting the dose as necessary. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02702388

Safety and efficacy of nintedanib as second-line therapy for patients with differentiated or medullary thyroid cancer progressing after first-line therapy. A randomized phase II study of the EORTC Endocrine Task Force (protocol 1209-EnTF)

BackgroundNintedanib is a triple-angiokinase inhibitor with potential activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancers, as radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC).DesignEORTC-1209 (NCT01788982) was a double-blind randomized (2:1 ratio) placebo-controlled phase II, multi-cohort study exploring the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with progressive, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RAIR DTC and MTC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the per-protocol (PP) population for both cohorts. Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsRAIR DTC cohort: Seventy out of the 75 planned patients with RAIR DTC (median age, 66 years; 39 women) who had progressed after one (76%) or two lines (24%) of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 45) or placebo (N = 25). Of these, 69 patients started treatment and 56 met all inclusion criteria (PP). At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 26.3 months in the nintedanib arm and 19.8 months in the placebo arm. In the PP population, the median PFS was 3.7 months [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.9–6.5] in the nintedanib arm and 2.9 months (80% CI, 2.0–5.6) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.65; 80% CI, 0.42–0.99; one-sided log-rank test P = 0.0947). No objective response was observed. The median OS was 29.6 months [80% CI, 15.2–not reached (NR)] in the nintedanib arm and not reached in the placebo arm. Grade 3–4 adverse events of any attribution occurred in 50% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 36% of patients receiving placebo. MTC cohort: Thirty-one out of the 67 planned patients with MTC (median age, 57 years; eight women) who had progressed after one (68%) or two (32%) lines of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 22) or placebo (N = 9). Of these, 20 patients (15 in the nintedanib arm and five in the placebo arm) started treatment and met all inclusion criteria (PP). The median PFS was 7.0 months (80% CI, 1.9–8.7) in the nintedanib arm and 3.9 months (80% CI, 3.0–5.5) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.16–1.53). No objective response was reported. The median OS was 16.4 months (80% CI, 12.1–24.9) in the nintedanib arm and 12.3 months (80% CI, 7.1–NR) in the placebo arm. Grade 3–4 adverse events of any attribution during the blinded period occurred in 59.1% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 33.3% of patients receiving placebo.ConclusionThis study did not suggest a clinically significant improvement of PFS with nintedanib over placebo in patients with pretreated RAIR DTC and MTC

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma metastatic to bone marrow presenting with disseminated intravascular coagulation and acute tumour lysis syndrome: review of the literature apropos of two cases

The paper presents diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties in two adolescents with widespread rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) presenting with severe haemorrhages resulting from disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and with laboratory features of acute tumour lysis syndrome (ATLS). Other published cases of childhood RMS with DIC at admission have been listed and reviewed. It has been concluded that the clinical picture of a widespread RMS in children may resemble acute hematologic malignancy and pose a big diagnostic problem. That is why the presence of small blue round cells morphologically similar to lymphoblasts and/or myeloblasts in bone marrow (BM), lacking hematopoietic makers, should prompt the pathologist to consider possible diagnosis of RMS. Inclusion of desmin, MyoD1 and myogenin Myf4 to the immunohistochemical panel is obligatory in such cases. When the representative histopathological tumour specimens are difficult to obtain, the flow cytometric immunophenotyping of BM metastases could help the standard morphological/immunohistological diagnostic procedures and advance the diagnosis. Recently, the flow cytometric CD45− CD56+ immunophenotype together with Myf4 transcript has been assigned to RMS cells infiltrating BM. In children with disseminated RMS complicated with DIC rapid polychemotherapy aimed at diminishing the malignancy-triggered procoagulant activity should be initiated. However, in cases with concomitant ATLS the initial doses of chemotherapy should be reduced and the metabolic disorders and renal function monitored. The prognosis in children with RMS metastatic to BM with signs of DIC or ATLS at admission depends on the response to chemotherapy, however generally it is highly disappointing