Current standards and future perspectives in adjuvant treatment for biliary tract cancers

Biliary tract cancer, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) are rare tumours with a rising incidence. Prognosis is poor, since most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease. Only ∼20% of patients are diagnosed with early-stage disease, suitable for curative surgery. Despite surgery performed with potentially-curative intent, relapse rates are high, with around 60-70% of patients expected to have disease recurrence. Most relapses occur in the form of distant metastases, with a predominance of liver spread. In view of high tumour recurrence, adjuvant strategies have been explored for many years, in the form of radiotherapy, chemo-radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Historically, few randomised trials were available, including a variety of additional tumours (e.g. pancreatic and ampullary tumours) and most evidence relied on phase II and retrospective studies, with no high-quality evidence available to define the real benefit derived from adjuvant strategies. Since 2017, three randomised phase III clinical trials have been reported; all recruited patients with resected biliary tract cancer (CCA and GBC) who were randomised to observation alone, or chemotherapy in the form of gemcitabine (BCAT study; included patients diagnosed with extrahepatic CCA only), gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (PRODIGE-12/ACCORD-18; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC) or capecitabine (BILCAP; included patients diagnosed with CCA and GBC). While gemcitabine-based chemotherapy failed to show an impact on patient outcome (relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS)), the BILCAP study showed a benefit from adjuvant capecitabine in terms of OS (pre-planned sensitivity analysis in the intention-to-treat population and in the per-protocol analysis), with confirmed benefit in terms of RFS. Based on the BILCAP trial, international guidelines recommend adjuvant capecitabine for a period of six months following potentially curative resection of CCA as the current standard of care for resected CCA and GBC. However, BILCAP failed to show OS benefit in the intention-to-treat (non-sensitivity analysis) population (primary end-point), and this finding, as well as some inconsistencies between studies has been criticised and has led to confusion in the biliary tract cancer medical community. This review summarises the adjuvant field in biliary tract cancer, with evidence before and after 2017, and comparison between the latest randomised phase III studies. Potential explanations are presented for differential findings, and future steps are explored

A phase 1b study of Selumetinib in combination with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: the ABC-04 study

BACKGROUND: Combined treatment with cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) is the standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) potently and selectively inhibits MEK1/2, an intracellular kinase and has shown activity in ABC. The objective of the ABC-04 trial was to establish the recommended dose of selumetinib in combination with CisGem in patients with ABC. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years, had histologically or cytologically-confirmed unresectable recurrent or metastatic biliary tract, gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma, WHO performance status 0-2, and adequate major organ function. Patients may have had prior surgery, radiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy, but no prior CisGem and no prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Patients received cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Selumetinib capsules were taken daily. Patients received up to 8 cycles of CisGem and could receive selumetinib until disease progression. A dose de-escalation scheme was used to determine the recommended dose of selumetinib. The first dose level was 75 mg bd. Patients were recruited in cohorts of 3 and assessed for dose limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle of treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were recruited, of whom 12 were evaluable for DLT (1 did not start treatment). All evaluable patients received the starting dose of selumetinib 75 mg bd and one patient experienced a DLT (cardiac chest pain). The median number of days selumetinib was taken (adjusted for the number of days of dose interruptions) was 171.5 (IQR: 75.5 to 344). Two patients remained on treatment at 14 and 19 months post registration. There were 3 temporary and 1 permanent interruptions of selumetinib in cycle 1. Eight patients were evaluable for objective response (RECIST v1.1): 3 had a partial response and 5 stable disease. The median PFS was 6.4 months (IQR 5.2 to 13.7). Toxicities related to selumetinib were mostly related to oedema and rash, grade 1-2 and manageable. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of selumetinib increased by 12, 11 and 30 % respectively when it was administered with CisGem, while Cmax for the N-desmethyl metabolite of selumetinib decreased by 40 %. There was no evidence that the time of Cmax for selumetinib or N-desmethyl metabolite of selumetinib were different when selumetinib was administered alone or with CisGem. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose of selumetinib when combined with CisGem was 75 mg bd. Translational studies are underway to identify biomarkers that may predict outcome (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01242605 July 6(th) 2010)

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned

The clinical efficacy of first-generation carcinoembryonic antigen (CEACAM5)-specific CAR T cells is limited by poor persistence and transient pre-conditioning-dependent respiratory toxicity

The primary aim of this clinical trial was to determine the feasibility of delivering first-generation CAR T cell therapy to patients with advanced, CEACAM5(+) malignancy. Secondary aims were to assess clinical efficacy, immune effector function and optimal dose of CAR T cells. Three cohorts of patients received increasing doses of CEACAM5(+)-specific CAR T cells after fludarabine pre-conditioning plus systemic IL2 support post T cell infusion. Patients in cohort 4 received increased intensity pre-conditioning (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine), systemic IL2 support and CAR T cells. No objective clinical responses were observed. CAR T cell engraftment in patients within cohort 4 was significantly higher. However, engraftment was short-lived with a rapid decline of systemic CAR T cells within 14 days. Patients in cohort 4 had transient, acute respiratory toxicity which, in combination with lack of prolonged CAR T cell persistence, resulted in the premature closure of the trial. Elevated levels of systemic IFNγ and IL-6 implied that the CEACAM5-specific T cells had undergone immune activation in vivo but only in patients receiving high-intensity pre-conditioning. Expression of CEACAM5 on lung epithelium may have resulted in this transient toxicity. Raised levels of serum cytokines including IL-6 in these patients implicate cytokine release as one of several potential factors exacerbating the observed respiratory toxicity. Whilst improved CAR designs and T cell production methods could improve the systemic persistence and activity, methods to control CAR T 'on-target, off-tissue' toxicity are required to enable a clinical impact of this approach in solid malignancies

Identification of areas for improvement in the management of bone metastases in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms

Background: There is no global consensus on the optimal management of bone metastases (BMs) in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). Objectives: To review current management and outcomes of patients with BMs in NENs, in order to identify areas for improvement. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with NENs, except Grade 3 (G3) lung NENs (April 2002-March 2018) was conducted. Baseline characteristics, nature of BMs, treatment received and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v23.0/STATA v12. Results: Of 1212 patients, 85 (7%) had BMs; median age 58 years. The majority had a gastro-entero-pancreatic primary (49%, n=42) followed by lung (25%, n=21), unknown primary (20%, n=17), and “others” (6%, n=5). Two-thirds (n=57) had G1-2 neuroendocrine tumours, and 41% (n=35) had functional tumours. Overall, 28% (n=24) presented with synchronous BMs at first NEN diagnosis, and 55% (n=47) developed BMs at the same time as other distant metastases. For the subpopulation of patients in whom BMs developed metachronously to other distant metastases (45%, n=38), median time to development of BMs was 14.0 months. BMs were ‘widespread’ in 61% (n=52). Although only 22% (n=19) reported symptoms at initial diagnosis of BMs, most (78%) developed symptoms at some time during the follow-up period (pain/hypercalcaemia 64%, skeletal-related events 20%). BMs were mainly managed with analgesia (44%, n=37). Radiotherapy and bisphosphonates were used in 34% (n=29) and 22% (n=19), respectively. Surgery was rarely performed (2%, n=2). Median OS from identification of BMs was 31.0 months, and 18.9 months from development of BMs-related symptoms. Conclusions: In this cohort study, most patients with BMs developed symptoms. The utility of radiotherapy and/or bisphosphonates should be prospectively and systematically explored further for its potential impact on patients’ quality of life and survival outcomes

Determining the role of external beam radiotherapy in unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 84 patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common type of primary liver cancer. Only few studies have focused on palliative radiotherapy used for patients who weren't suitable for resection by surgery. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for patients with unresectable ICC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified 84 patients with ICC from December 1998 through December 2008 for retrospective analysis. Thirty-five of 84 patients received EBRT therapy five times a week (median dose, 50 Gy; dose range, 30-60 Gy, in fractions of 1.8-2.0 Gy daily; EBRT group); the remaining 49 patients comprised the non-EBRT group. Tumor response, jaundice relief, and survival rates were compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Patient records were reviewed and compared using Cox proportional hazard analysis to determine factors that affect survival time in ICC.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After EBRT, complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) of primary tumors were observed in 8.6% and 28.5% of patients, respectively, and CR and PR of lymph node metastases were observed in 20% and 40% of patients. In 19 patients with jaundice, complete and partial relief was observed in 36.8% and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Median survival times were 5.1 months for the non-EBRT group and 9.5 months for the EBRT group (<it>P </it>= 0.003). One-and two-year survival rates for EBRT versus non-EBRT group were 38.5% versus 16.4%, and 9.6% versus 4.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that clinical symptoms, larger tumor size, no EBRT, multiple nodules and synchronous lymph node metastases were associated with poorer prognosis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>EBRT as palliative care appears to improve prognosis and relieve the symptom of jaundice in patients with unresectable ICC.</p

PHOTOSTENT-02: porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy plus stenting versus stenting alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer

Background: Endobiliary stenting is standard practice for palliation of obstructive jaundice due to biliary tract cancer (BTC). Photodynamic therapy (PDT) may also improve biliary drainage and previous small studies suggested survival benefit. // Aims: To assess the difference in outcome between patients with BTC undergoing palliative stenting plus PDT versus stenting alone. // Methods: 92 patients with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic BTC, ECOG performance status 0–3 and adequate biliary drainage were randomised (46 per group) to receive porfimer sodium PDT plus stenting or stenting alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Toxicity and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. Treatment arms were well balanced for baseline factors and prior therapy. // Results: No significant differences in grade 3–4 toxicities and no grade 3–4 adverse events due to PDT were observed. Thirteen (28%) PDT patients and 24 (52%) stent alone patients received subsequent palliative chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 8.4 months, OS and PFS were worse in patients receiving PDT compared with stent alone group (OS median 6.2 vs 9.8 months (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.43, p=0.048) and PFS median 3.4 vs 4.3 months (HR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.18, p=0.10), respectively). // Conclusion: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC, PDT was associated with worse outcome than stenting alone, explained only in part by the differences in chemotherapy treatments. We conclude that optimal stenting remains the treatment of choice for malignant biliary obstruction and the use of PDT for this indication cannot be recommended outside of clinical trials. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN 87712758; EudraCT 2005-001173-96; UKCRN ID: 1461