Impact of specific KRAS Mutation in Exon 2 on clinical outcome of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-treated colorectal adenocarcinoma patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Knowledge obtained via high-throughput technologies, used for tumor genome sequencing or identifying gene expression and methylation signatures, is clinically applicable thanks to molecular characterization in the context of tumor development and progression. This study was conducted to assess the impact of specific KRAS mutation in codons 12 and 13 on clinical outcome of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 239 samples of colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent histological evaluation and DNA isolation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a mutation in KRAS codon 13 experienced worse outcome than those with a mutation in KRAS codon 12. Moreover, the cases of mutations in KRAS codons 12 or 13 were associated with a significantly higher mortality than the cases of wild-type KRAS, and some patients with KRAS mutated in codon 12 had an exceptionally long overall survival. Finally, primary preoperative radiation therapy followed by surgery significantly increased overall survival more efficiently than surgery followed by chemotherapy. This should be investigated in further studies. The fact that all patients treated with radiotherapy + surgery were alive, again focused our attention on the effect of preoperative radiation therapy on the prognosis for colorectal cancer patients. However, the number of patients in this subgroup is too small to allow any specific explanation for this observation. We should, rather, point out a problem for further investigation

Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains a lethal disease with current standard-of-care therapies. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, including BRCA1/2 alterations, can sensitize cancer cells to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, which may improve outcomes in treatment-naïve mCRPC when combined with androgen receptor signaling inhibition. METHODS: MAGNITUDE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03748641) is a phase III, randomized, double-blinded study that evaluates niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (niraparib + AAP) in patients with (HRR+, n = 423) or without (HRR-, n = 247) HRR-associated gene alterations, as prospectively determined by tissue/plasma-based assays. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive niraparib + AAP or placebo + AAP. The primary end point, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed by central review, was evaluated first in the BRCA1/2 subgroup and then in the full HRR+ cohort, with secondary end points analyzed for the full HRR+ cohort if rPFS was statistically significant. A futility analysis was preplanned in the HRR- cohort. RESULTS: Median rPFS in the BRCA1/2 subgroup was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.6 v 10.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79; P = .001). In the overall HRR+ cohort, rPFS was significantly longer in the niraparib + AAP group compared with the placebo + AAP group (16.5 v 13.7 months; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.96; P = .022). These findings were supported by improvement in the secondary end points of time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy. In the HRR- cohort, futility was declared per the prespecified criteria. Treatment with niraparib + AAP was tolerable, with anemia and hypertension as the most reported grade ≥ 3 adverse events. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with niraparib + AAP significantly lengthened rPFS in patients with HRR+ mCRPC compared with standard-of-care AAP

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651.

Purpose: CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). Methods: Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS ≥ 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS ≥ 20 populations. Results: Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS ≥ 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .0469) populations. In patients with CPS ≥ 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS ≥ 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME. Conclusion: CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS ≥ 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN

Potential Role of Methylation Marker in Glioma Supporting Clinical Decisions

The IDH1/2 gene mutations, ATRX loss/mutation, 1p/19q status, and MGMT promoter methylation are increasingly used as prognostic or predictive biomarkers of gliomas. However, the effect of their combination on radiation therapy outcome is discussable. Previously, we demonstrated that the IDH1 c.G395A; p.R132H mutation was associated with longer survival in grade II astrocytoma and GBM (Glioblastoma). Here we analyzed the MGMT promoter methylation status in patients with a known mutation status in codon 132 of IDH1, followed by clinical and genetic data analysis based on the two statuses. After a subtotal tumor resection, the patients were treated using IMRT (Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy) with 6 MeV photons. The total dose was: 54 Gy for astrocytoma II, 60 Gy for astrocytoma III, 60 Gy for glioblastoma, 2 Gy per day, with 24 h intervals, five days per week. The patients with MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 somatic mutation (OS = 40 months) had a better prognosis than those with MGMT methylation alone (OS = 18 months). In patients with astrocytoma anaplasticum (n = 7) with the IDH1 p.R132H mutation and hypermethylated MGMT, the prognosis was particularly favorable (median OS = 47 months). In patients with astrocytoma II meeting the above criteria, the prognosis was also better than in those not meeting those criteria. The IDH1 mutation appears more relevant for the prognosis than MGMT methylation. The IDH1 p.R132H mutation combined with MGMT hypermethylation seems to be the most advantageous for treatment success. Patients not meeting those criteria may require more aggressive treatments

Real-world Treatment Sequencing in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prospective, International, Observational Prostate Cancer Registry

Background: Prostate cancer has a multifaceted treatment pattern. Evidence is lacking for optimal treatment sequences for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Objective: To increase the understanding of real-world treatment pathways and outcomes in patients with mCRPC. Design, setting, and participants: A prospective, noninterventional, real-world analysis of 3003 patients with mCRPC in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR; NCT02236637) from June 14, 2013 to July 9, 2018 was conducted. Intervention: Patients received first- and second-line hormonal treatment and chemotherapy as follows: abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone)-docetaxel (ABI-DOCE), abiraterone-enzalutamide (ABI-ENZA), abiraterone–radium-223 (ABI-RAD), docetaxel-abiraterone (DOCE-ABI), docetaxel-cabazitaxel (DOCE-CABA), docetaxel-enzalutamide (DOCE-ENZA), and enzalutamide-docetaxel (ENZA-DOCE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Baseline patient characteristics, quality of life, mCRPC treatments, and efficacy outcomes (progression and survival) were presented descriptively. Results and limitations: Data from 727 patients were eligible for the analysis (ABI-DOCE n = 178, ABI-ENZA n = 99, ABI-RAD n = 27, DOCE-ABI n = 191, DOCE-CABA n = 74, DOCE-ENZA n = 116, and ENZA-DOCE n = 42). Demographics and disease characteristics among patients between different sequences varied greatly. Most patients who started on abiraterone or enzalutamide stopped therapy because of disease progression. No randomisation to allow treatment/sequence comparisons limited this observational study. Conclusions: The real-world PCR data complement clinical trial data, reflecting more highly selected patient populations than seen in routine clinical practice. Baseline characteristics play a role in mCRPC first-line treatment selection, but other factors, such as treatment availability, have an impact. Efficacy observations are limited and should be interpreted with caution. Patient summary: Baseline characteristics appear to have a role in the first-line treatment selection of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the real-world setting. First-line abiraterone acetate plus prednisone seems to be the preferred treatment option for older patients and those with lower Gleason scores, first-line docetaxel for younger patients and those with more advanced disease, and first-line enzalutamide for patients with fewer metastases and more favourable performance status. The benefit to patients from these observations remains unknown