CT versus FDG-PET/CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab

We compared morphologic computed tomography (CT)-based to metabolic fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT-based response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and correlated the findings with survival and KRAS status. From 2006 to 2009, patients were included in a phase II trial and treated with cetuximab and irinotecan every second week. They underwent FDG-PET/CT examination at baseline and after every fourth treatment cycle. Response evaluation was performed prospectively according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.0) and retrospectively according to Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). Best overall responses were registered. Sixty-one patients were eligible for response evaluation. Partial response (PR) rate was 18%, stable disease (SD) rate 64%, and progressive disease (PD) rate 18%. Partial metabolic response (PMR) rate was 56%, stable metabolic disease rate 33%, and progressive metabolic disease (PMD) rate 11%. Response agreement was poor, κ-coefficient 0.19. Hazard ratio for overall survival for responders (PR/PMR) versus nonresponders (PD/PMD) was higher for CT- than for FDG-PET/CT evaluation. Within patients with KRAS mutations, none had PR but 44% had PMR. In conclusion, morphologic and metabolic response agreement was poor primarily because a large part of the patients shifted from SD with CT evaluation to PMR when evaluated with FDG-PET/CT. Furthermore, a larger fraction of the patients with KRAS mutations had a metabolic treatment response

Topoisomerase I copy number alterations as biomarker for irinotecan efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: No biomarker exists to guide the optimal choice of chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We examined the copy numbers (CN) of topoisomerase I (TOP1) as well as the ratios of TOP1/CEN-20 and TOP1/CEN-2 as biomarkers for irinotecan efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: From a national cohort, we identified 163 patients treated every third week with irinotecan 350 mg/m(2) as second-line therapy. Among these 108 were eligible for analyses and thus entered the study. Primary tumors samples were collected and tissue microarray (TMA) blocks were produced. FISH analysis was performed using two probe-mixes: TOP1/CEN-20 and TOP1/CEN-2. Only samples harboring all three signals (TOP1, CEN-20 and CEN-2) using FISH were included in the analyses. RESULTS: In the TOP1/CEN-20 probe-mix the median TOP1- and CEN-20 CN were 4.46 (range: 1.5–9.5) and 2.00 (range: 0.55–4.55), respectively. The median TOP1- and CEN-2 CN in the TOP1/CEN-2 probe-mix, were 4.57 (range: 1.82–10.43) and 1.98 (range: 1.22–6.14), respectively. The median TOP1/CEN-20 ratio and TOP1/CEN-2 ratio were 1.25 (range: 0.92–2.90) and 2.05 (range: 1.00–6.00), respectively. None of the markers TOP1 CN, TOP1/CEN-20-ratio or TOP1/CEN-2-ratio were associated with progression free survival, overall survival or baseline characteristics. Yet, we observed a borderline association for a stepwise increase of the TOP1 CN in relation to objective response as hazard ratio were 1.35 (95% CI 0.96–1.90; p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: We verified a borderline significant association between increasing TOP1 CN and objective response as previously reported. Applying the probes representing CEN-20 and CEN-2, in order to investigate the ratios of TOP1/CEN-20 and TOP1/CEN-2 provided no further information in search of a biomarker driven patient stratification. Other biomarkers to be paired with TOP1 CN are therefore highly warranted

Systemic immune response induced by oxaliplatin-based neoadjuvant therapy favours survival without metastatic progression in high-risk rectal cancer

Background Systemic failure remains a challenge in rectal cancer. We investigated the possible systemic anti-tumour immune activity invoked within oxaliplatin-based neoadjuvant therapy. Methods In two high-risk patient cohorts, we assessed the circulating levels of the fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), a factor reflecting both therapy-induced myelosuppression and activation of tumour antigen-presenting dendritic cells, at baseline and following induction chemotherapy and sequential chemoradiotherapy, both modalities containing oxaliplatin. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results In both cohorts, the median Flt3L level was significantly higher at completion of each sequential modality than at baseline. The 5-year PFS (most events being metastatic progression) was 68% and 71% in the two cohorts consisting of 33% and 52% T4 cases. In the principal cohort, a high Flt3L level following the induction chemotherapy was associated with low risk for a PFS event (HR: 0.15; P < 0.01). These patients also had available dose scheduling and toxicity data, revealing that oxaliplatin dose reduction during chemoradiotherapy, undertaken to maintain compliance to the radiotherapy protocol, was associated with advantageous PFS (HR: 0.47; P = 0.046). Conclusion In high-risk rectal cancer, oxaliplatin-containing neoadjuvant therapy may promote an immune response that favours survival without metastatic progression

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