Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown clinical benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) or microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours in previous studies. Both an active combination chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI; fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) and bevacizumab seem able to increase the immunogenicity of pMMR or MSS tumours. We aimed to provide preliminary evidence of benefit from the addition of the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AtezoTRIBE was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study of patients (aged 18–70 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 0–2 and aged 71–75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with histologically confirmed, unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate organ function, who were recruited from 22 oncology centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour site, and previous adjuvant therapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm randomly assigned (1:2) patients via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two groups: the control group received first-line FOLFOXIRI (intravenous 165 mg/m2 irinotecan, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 3200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as a 48 h infusion) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously), and the atezolizumab group received the same regimen plus atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously). Combination treatments were administered up to eight 14-day cycles followed by maintenance with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab, according to randomisation group, until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The study recruitment is completed. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03721653. Between Nov 30, 2018, and Feb 26, 2020, 218 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (73 in the control group and 145 in the atezolizumab group). At the data cutoff (Aug 1, 2021), median follow-up was 19·9 months (IQR 17·3–23·9). Median progression-free survival was 13·1 months (80% CI 12·5–13·8) in the atezolizumab group and 11·5 months (10·0–12·6) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [80% CI 0·56–0·85]; p=0·012; adjusted HR 0·70 [80% CI 0·57–0·87]; log-rank test p=0·018). The most frequent all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (59 [42%] of 142 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 26 [36%] of 72 patients in the control group), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs nine [13%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [10%] vs seven [10%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) patients in the atezolizumab group and in 19 (26%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths (due to acute myocardial infarction and bronchopulmonary haemorrhage) were reported in the atezolizumab group; none were reported in the control group. The addition of atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is safe and improved progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. GONO Foundation, ARCO Foundation, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche.

Response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the past decade, the development of antiangiogenic and anti-EGFR biologic agents, doublet and triplet chemotherapy regimens, and combinations of these treatment modalities has created not only new first-line treatment options, but also new challenges for the management of this disease. In this Perspectives, these advances and the confusion surrounding their implications are discussed. The authors attempt to address some of the challenges in clinical decision-making and propose an algorithm for personalized allocation of first-line treatments in patients with mCRC. The response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), for three main reasons: effective upfront therapy provides a unique opportunity to cure some patients; can be crucial in delaying disease progression and achieving symptom relief; and can improve patient eligibility for, and the effectiveness of, further treatments. In the past decade, decision-making regarding the choice of first-line therapy for mCRC has been complicated by the availability of many different options without a definitive consensus on a specific standard of care (despite major advances in categorizing predictive molecular disease subtypes). Most of the efforts of the scientific community have been directed at establishing the best biologic agent to be combined with a chemotherapy doublet, although a different branch of research has produced new data that underscore the importance of defining the optimal chemotherapy backbone. Herein, we review the key clinical trials completed in the past 10 years that have investigated and compared the use of chemotherapy doublets, triplets, and monotherapies, with or without molecularly targeted biologic agents, in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. Our examination of the literature led us to propose a new patient-oriented algorithm to guide clinicians' decisions on the best choice of upfront therapy for mCRC.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. Methods AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12 months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. Discussion The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. Trial registration AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017–000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017 .

Molecular assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is receiving growing attention, beyond RAS and BRAF, because of its influence on prognosis and prediction in cancer treatment. PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homologue), a tumor suppressor, regulating cell division and apoptosis, has been explored, and significant evidence suggests a role in cetuximab and panitumumab resistance linked to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signal transduction pathway. Factors influencing PTEN activity should be analyzed to develop strategies to maximize the tumor suppressor role and to improve tumor response to cancer treatment. Therefore, an in-depth knowledge of the PI3K-Akt pathway—one of the major cancer survival pathways—and the role of PTEN—a major brake of this pathway—is essential in the era of precision medicine. The purpose of this literature review is to summarize the role of PTEN as a predictive factor and possible therapeutic target in CRC, focusing on ongoing studies and the possible implications in clinical practice.

In advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), first-line chemotherapy is the standard of care. Due to the absence of head-to-head comparisons in clinical trials, we performed this systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare treatment options for PDAC in terms of their efficacy and toxicity. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and oncological meetings websites were searched until Nov 15, 2023. We included phase 2–3 randomised controlled trials published after Jan 1, 2000, evaluating first-line treatments in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Primary endpoints assessed were progression-free survival and overall survival. Summary data were extracted from published reports. The deviance information criterion was used to choose between a random-effects or fixed-effects model. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals were estimated using a Bayesian approach. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and studies were graded as low, some concerns, or high risk of bias. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This systematic review and network meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023450330. 6050 records were screened and 79 randomised controlled trials (22 168 patients) were included in the analysis. Gemcitabine was the most frequent comparator (in 50 [63%] of 79 trials) and was considered as the reference treatment. A fixed-effect model was used to analyse the primary outcomes. Regarding progression-free survival (71 trials, 19 479 patients), the most effective treatments were gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel alternating folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin ([FOLFOX] HR 0·32, 95% credible interval 0·22–0·47), cisplatin, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, and gemcitabine ([PAXG] 0·35, 0·22–0·55), and liposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin ([NALIRIFOX] 0·43, 0·34–0·54), followed by fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin ([FOLFIRINOX] 0·55, 0·47–0·65) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (0·62, 0·54–0·72). Similar results were observed for overall survival (79 trials, 22 104 patients): PAXG (HR 0·40, 95% credible interval 0·25–0·65), gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel alternating FOLFOX (0·46, 0·32–0·66), and NALIRIFOX (0·56, 0·45–0·70) had the highest benefit, followed by FOLFIRINOX (0·66, 0·56–0·78) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (0·67, 0·59–0·77). The overall risk of bias was low to some concerns. Certainty of evidence was low. Our findings suggest that NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX should be the preferred options for patients who can tolerate these regimens, with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel remaining a viable alternative, particularly in patients unfit for triplet therapy. Phase 3 randomised controlled trials investigating concomitant or sequential quadruplets are warranted. None.

BackgroundDespite unprecedented benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) advanced gastrointestinal cancers, a relevant proportion of patients shows primary resistance or short-term disease control. Since malignant effusions represent an immune-suppressed niche, we investigated whether peritoneal involvement with or without ascites is a poor prognostic factor in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and gastric cancer (mGC) receiving ICIs.MethodsWe conducted a global multicohort study at Tertiary Cancer Centers and collected clinic-pathological data from a cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 ±anti-CTLA-4 agents at 12 institutions (developing set). A cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-high mGC treated with anti-PD-1 agents±chemotherapy at five institutions was used as validating dataset.ResultsThe mCRC cohort included 502 patients. After a median follow-up of 31.2 months, patients without peritoneal metastases and those with peritoneal metastases and no ascites had similar outcomes (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56 for progression-free survival (PFS); aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42 for overall survival (OS)), whereas inferior outcomes were observed in patients with peritoneal metastases and ascites (aHR 2.90, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.94; aHR 3.33, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.91) compared with patients without peritoneal involvement. The mGC cohort included 59 patients. After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, inferior PFS and OS were reported in patients with peritoneal metastases and ascites (aHR 3.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 8.72; aHR 3.44, 95% CI 1.39 to 8.53, respectively), but not in patients with only peritoneal metastases (aHR 1.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 5.46; aHR 2.15, 95% CI 0.64 to 7.27) when compared with patients without peritoneal involvement.ConclusionsPatients with dMMR/MSI-H gastrointestinal cancers with peritoneal metastases and ascites should be considered as a peculiar subgroup with highly unfavorable outcomes to current ICI-based therapies. Novel strategies to target the immune-suppressive niche in malignant effusions should be investigated, as well as next-generation ICIs or intraperitoneal approaches.

Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) is the standard treatment modality in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Since response to radiotherapy (RT) is dose dependent in rectal cancer, dose escalation may lead to higher complete response rates. The possibility to predict patients who will achieve complete response (CR) is fundamental. Recently, an early tumour regression index (ERI) was introduced to predict pathological CR (pCR) after nCRT in LARC patients. The primary endpoints will be the increase of CR rate and the evaluation of feasibility of delta radiomics-based predictive MRI guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) model. Methods Patients affected by LARC cT2-3, N0-2 or cT4 for anal sphincter involvement N0-2a, M0 without high risk features will be enrolled in the trial. Neoadjuvant CRT will be administered using MRgRT. The initial RT treatment will consist in delivering 55 Gy in 25 fractions on Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) plus the corresponding mesorectum and 45 Gy in 25 fractions on the drainage nodes. Chemotherapy with 5-fluoracil (5-FU) or oral capecitabine will be administered continuously. A 0.35 Tesla MRI will be acquired at simulation and every day during MRgRT. At fraction 10, ERI will be calculated: if ERI will be inferior than 13.1, the patient will continue the original treatment; if ERI will be higher than 13.1 the treatment plan will be reoptimized, intensifying the dose to the residual tumor at the 11 th fraction to reach 60.1 Gy. At the end of nCRT instrumental examinations are to be performed in order to restage patients. In case of stable disease or progression, the patient will undergo surgery. In case of major or complete clinical response, conservative approaches may be chosen. Patients will be followed up to evaluate toxicity and quality of life. The number of cases to be enrolled will be 63: all the patients will be treated at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS in Rome. Discussion This clinical trial investigates the impact of RT dose escalation in poor responder LARC patients identified using ERI, with the aim of increasing the probability of CR and consequently an organ preservation benefit in this group of patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04815694 (25/03/2021).

Background: Pancreatic cancer incidence is growing, but the prognosis for survival is still poor. Patients with pancreatic cancer often suffer from malnutrition and sarcopenia, two clinical conditions that negatively impact oncological clinical outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the impact of different nutritional interventions on clinical outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer during chemotherapy. Methods: A systematic review of MedLine, EMBASE, and Web of Science was carried out in December 2022, identifying 5704 articles. Titles and abstracts of all records were screened for eligibility based on inclusion criteria, and nine articles were included. Results: All nine articles included were prospective studies, but a meta-analysis could not be performed due to heterogenicity in nutritional intervention. This Systematic Review shows an improvement in Quality of Life, nutritional status, body composition, oral intake, and Karnofsky Performance Status, following nutritional interventions. Conclusions: This Systematic Review in pancreatic cancer patients during chemotherapies does not allow one to draw firm conclusions. However, nutritional support in pancreatic cancer patients is advisable to ameliorate oncological care. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to identify nutritional support’s real impact and to establish a reliable way to improve nutritional status of pancreatic cancer patients during chemotherapy.

In the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 study, sotorasib (KRASG12C inhibitor) plus panitumumab (EGFR inhibitor) significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus investigator's choice of trifluridine–tipiracil or regorafenib (standard of care) in patients with KRASG12C-mutated chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as secondary and exploratory endpoints. In this open-label, randomised clinical trial, adult (aged ≥18 years) patients from 67 centres in 13 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America with KRASG12C-mutated chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (as assessed by central molecular testing of tumour biopsy specimens) who were KRASG12C inhibitor-naive, had progressed to recurrence after previous therapy with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, with measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0, 1, or 2, were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using interactive response technology to receive sotorasib 960 mg (daily, orally)–panitumumab (6 mg/kg every 2 weeks, intravenous infusion), sotorasib 240 mg (daily, orally)–panitumumab (6 mg/kg every 2 weeks, intravenous infusion), or investigator's choice of trifluridine–tipiracil (35 mg/m2 [up to 80 mg per dose] on days 1–5 and 8–12 twice a day, orally) or regorafenib (160 mg daily for the first 21 days, orally). Randomisation was stratified by by previous anti-angiogenic therapy, time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomisation, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (reported previously). PROs included fatigue at its worst according to the Brief Fatigue Inventory, pain at its worst according to the Brief Pain Inventory (where lower score is better), and Global Health Status–Quality of Life (GHS–QoL) and physical function subscales of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (where higher score is better) assessed via validated PRO questionnaires, administered at baseline, day 1 of each 4-week cycle until disease progression, and safety follow-up. Analyses were conducted in a modified intention-to-treat population. Least squares mean changes from baseline to week 9 were estimated using a mixed effects model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD), change in overall status, and patient-reported tolerability were also evaluated as prespecified exploratory outcomes. TTD was summarised using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan–Meier curve. Change in overall status and patient-reported tolerability were also summarised descriptively over time. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05198934, and prespecified analyses are completed. Between April 19, 2022, and March 14, 2023, 160 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive sotorasib 960 mg–panitumumab (n=53), sotorasib 240 mg–panitumumab (n=53), and investigator's choice (n=54). Median duration of treatment was 6·0 months (IQR 3·7–7·0), 4·6 months (3·3–6·2), and 2·2 months (1·8–4·2) in these groups, respectively. 81 (51%) patients in the study were female; 109 (68%) patients were White, 40 (25%) were Asian, one (1%) was Black, and ten (6%) were of another race or not reported; 12 (8%) were Hispanic or Latino and three (2%) were of unknown ethnicity. Compliance rates for PRO assessments at week 9 were high (approximately 80%) and similar across treatment groups. Least squares mean changes in PROs at week 9 favoured the two sotorasib groups. Differences in changes from baseline for sotorasib 960 mg–panitumumab and sotorasib 240 mg–panitumumab (both vs investigator's choice), respectively were: –0·89 (95% CI –1·80 to 0·01) and –0·58 (–1·47 to 0·30) for fatigue at its worst, –1·45 (–2·32 to –0·58) and –1·14 (–2·00 to –0·28) for pain at its worst, 9·43 (2·31 to 16·56) and 6·49 (–0·43 to 13·41) for GHS–QoL, and 5·38 (–0·01 to 10·78) and 6·34 (1·07 to 11·62) for physical function. Along with improved clinical outcomes, these analyses suggest that sotorasib plus panitumumab could represent a valuable new treatment in patients with KRASG12C-mutated chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Amgen.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is one of the most lethal human cancers. Its precursor lesions include pancreatic intra-epithelial neoplasia, mucinous cystic neoplasm, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN). IPMNs usually present as an incidental finding at imaging in 2.6% of the population and, according to the degree of dysplasia, they are classified as low- or high-grade lesions. Since the risk of malignant transformation is not accurately predictable, the management of these lesions is based on morphological and clinical parameters, such as presence of mural nodule, main pancreatic duct dilation, presence of symptoms, or high-grade dysplasia. Although the main genetic alterations associated to IPMNs have been elucidated, they are still not helpful for disease risk stratification. The growing body of genomic and epigenomic studies along with the more recent development of organotypic cultures provide the opportunity to improve our understanding of the malignant transformation process, which will likely deliver biomarkers to help discriminate between low- and high-risk lesions. Recent insights on the topic are herein summarized.