The Challenge of Blocking Malvertising

This poster invited Research Days attendees to learn more about malvertising--the practice of hiding malicious code within online advertisements--and the challenges of detecting and preventing it

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC

Colorectal cancer; Encorafenib; Quality of lifeCáncer colorrectal; Encorafenib; Calidad de vidaCàncer colorectal; Encorafenib; Qualitat de vidaBackground In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. Patients and methods BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator’s choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. Results Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. Conclusions In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.This study was sponsored by Array BioPharma Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer, United States; National Cancer Institute, United States in July 2019. This work was also supported by the Cancer Center Core Grant [grant number P30 CA 008748] to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Comprehensive pharmacogenetic profiling of the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway for biomarkers of response to, and toxicity from, cetuximab

Background Somatic mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) intracellular signalling pathways predict non-response to cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). We hypothesized that common germline variants within these pathways may also play similar roles. Methods We analysed 54 potentially functional, common, inherited EGFR pathway variants in 815 aCRC patients treated with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy +cetuximab. Primary endpoints were response and skin rash (SR). We had >85% power to detect ORs=1.6 for variants with minor allele frequencies >20%. Results We identified five potential biomarkers for response and four for SR, although none remained significant after correction for multiple testing. Our initial data supported a role for Ser313Pro in PIK3R2 in modulating response to cetuximab - in patients with KRAS wild type CRCs, 36.4% of patients with one allele encoding proline responded, as compared to 71.2% of patients homozygous for alleles encoding serine (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.56, P=0.0014) and this association was predictive for cetuximab (Pinteraction=0.017); however, independent replication failed to validate this association. No previously proposed predictive biomarkers were validated. Conclusions Our study highlights the need to validate potential pharmacogenetic biomarkers. We did not find strong evidence for common germline biomarkers of cetuximab response and toxicity

Circulating biomarkers during treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving cediranib in the UK ABC-03 trial

BACKGROUND: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis. Cediranib, in addition to cisplatin/gemcitabine [CisGem], improved the response rate, but did not improve the progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC-03 study. Minimally invasive biomarkers predictive of cediranib benefit may improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Changes in 15 circulating plasma angiogenesis or inflammatory-related proteins and cytokeratin-18 (CK18), measured at baseline and during therapy until disease progression, were correlated with overall survival (OS) using time-varying covariate Cox models (TVC). RESULTS: Samples were available from n=117/124 (94%) patients. Circulating Ang1&2, FGFb, PDGFbb, VEGFC, VEGFR1 and CK18 decreased as a result of the therapy, independent of treatment with cediranib. Circulating VEGFR2 and Tie2 were preferentially reduced by cediranib. Patients with increasing levels of VEGFA at any time had a worse PFS and OS; this detrimental effect was attenuated in patients receiving cediranib. TVC analysis revealed CK18 and VEGFR2 increases correlated with poorer OS in all patients (P< 0.001 and P=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rising circulating VEGFA levels in patients with ABC, treated with CisGem, are associated with worse PFS and OS, not seen in patients receiving cediranib. Rising levels of markers of tumour burden (CK18) and potential resistance (VEGFR2) are associated with worse outcomes and warrant validation

Pharmacogenetic analyses of 2,183 patients with advanced colorectal cancer; Potential role for common dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase variants in toxicity to chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Inherited genetic variants may influence response to, and side-effects from, chemotherapy. We sought to generate a comprehensive inherited pharmacogenetic profile for oxaliplatin and 5FU/capecitabine therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). METHODS: We analysed more than 200 potentially functional, common, inherited variants in genes within the 5FU, capecitabine, oxaliplatin and DNA repair pathways, together with four rare dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) variants, in 2183 aCRC patients treated with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with, or without, cetuximab (from MRC COIN and COIN-B trials). Primary end-points were response, any toxicity and peripheral neuropathy. We had >85% power to detect odds ratios (ORs) = 1.3 for variants with minor allele frequencies >20%. RESULTS: Variants in DNA repair genes (Asn279Ser in EXO1 and Arg399Gln in XRCC1) were most associated with response (OR 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.9, P = 0.004, and OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P = 0.003, respectively). Common variants in DPYD (Cys29Arg and Val732Ile) were most associated with toxicity (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P = 0.008, and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P = 0.006, respectively). Two rare DPYD variants were associated with increased toxicity (Asp949Val with neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea and infection; IVS14+1G>A with lethargy, diarrhoea, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome and infection; all ORs > 3). Asp317His in DCLRE1A was most associated with peripheral neuropathy (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, P = 0.003). No common variant associations remained significant after Bonferroni correction. CONCLUSIONS: DNA repair genes may play a significant role in the pharmacogenetics of aCRC. Our data suggest that both common and rare DPYD variants may be associated with toxicity to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy

Treatment breaks in first line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background Intermittent systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) may improve quality of life without compromising overall survival (OS). We aimed to use individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) from multiple randomised controlled trials evaluating intermittent strategies to inform clinical practice. We also aimed to validate whether thrombocytosis as a predictive biomarker identified patients with significantly reduced OS receiving a complete treatment break. Patients and Methods An IPDMA of intermittent strategy impact on survival was undertaken, including all relevant trials in which data were available. Intermittent strategies were classified into two groups: a planned stopping of all therapy (“treatment break strategy”; 6 trials; 2,907 patients) or to the same treatment omitting oxaliplatin (“maintenance strategy”; 3 trials; 1,271 patients). The primary analysis sample was of patients successfully completing induction therapy. Additionally, a pre-planned analysis of the predictive value of thrombocytosis on survival under a continuous versus an intermittent strategy was undertaken. Results All trials had comparable inclusion criteria. The overall IPDMA of intermittent therapy versus continuous therapy demonstrated no detriment in OS (HR=1.03 [95% CI 0.93-1.14]), whether from complete break (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87-1.26]) or maintenance strategies (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.13]). Thrombocytosis was confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis in aCRC, but did not predict for OS detriment from treatment break strategies (interaction HR=0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.40] compared to continuous therapy). Conclusion The highest levels of evidence from this IPMDA indicate no detriment in survival for patients receiving an intermittent therapy strategy, either for maintenance or complete break strategies. Although, thrombocytosis is confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis, it is not predictive of poor outcome for patients treated with intermittent therapy. An intermittent chemotherapy strategy can therefore be applied irrespective of baseline platelet count and does not result in inferior OS compared to continuous chemotherapy

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 24th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2022

This article summarises expert discussion on the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 24th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, July 2022. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory to ensure an optimal diagnosis and staging of HCC, planning of curative and therapeutic options, including surgical, embolisation, ablative strategies, or systemic therapy. Furthermore, in many patients with HCC, underlying liver cirrhosis represents a challenge and influences the therapeutic options

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894)

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care