Explore the vast range of titles available.

Colorectal cancer is genetically heterogeneous. Tumors in some patients have defects in mismatch DNA repair. These tumors have a high level of mutations that can lead to immune recognition. In a group of patients with microsatellite-unstable tumors, pembrolizumab led to longer progression-free survival and was less toxic than standard chemotherapy.

Pembrolizumab has shown improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the treatment's effect on overall survival in this cohort of patients was unknown. Here, we present the final overall survival analysis of the KEYNOTE-177 study. This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 193 academic medical centres and hospitals in 23 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or to the investigator's choice of intravenous mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1–2) or intravenous FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1–2), every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous weekly cetuximab (first dose 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 for every subsequent dose). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab for up to 35 treatment cycles after progression. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. KEYNOTE-177 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002, and is no longer enrolling patients. Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 852 patients were screened, of whom 307 (36%) were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). 93 (60%) patients crossed over from chemotherapy to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy (56 patients to on-study pembrolizumab and 37 patients to off-study therapy). At final analysis (median follow-up of 44·5 months [IQR 39·7–49·8]), median overall survival was not reached (NR; 95% CI 49·2–NR) with pembrolizumab vs 36·7 months (27·6–NR) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74; 95% CI 0·53–1·03; p=0·036). Superiority of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for overall survival was not demonstrated because the prespecified α of 0·025 needed for statistical significance was not achieved. At this updated analysis, median progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 5·4–38·1) with pembrolizumab versus 8·2 months (6·1–10·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·45–0·79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 33 (22%) of 153 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 95 (66%) of 143 patients in the chemotherapy group. Common adverse events of grade 3 or worse that were attributed to pembrolizumab were increased alanine aminotransferase, colitis, diarrhoea, and fatigue in three (2%) patients each, and those attributed to chemotherapy were decreased neutrophil count (in 24 [17%] patients), neutropenia (22 [15%]), diarrhoea (14 [10%]), and fatigue (13 [9%]). Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 25 (16%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 41 (29%) patients in the chemotherapy group. No deaths attributed to pembrolizumab occurred; one death due to intestinal perforation was attributed to chemotherapy. In this updated analysis, although pembrolizumab continued to show durable antitumour activity and fewer treatment-related adverse events compared with chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups. These findings support pembrolizumab as an efficacious first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. MSD.

In the KEYNOTE-177 study, pembrolizumab monotherapy provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. To further support the efficacy and safety findings of the KEYNOTE-177 study, results of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses are reported here. KEYNOTE-177 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial being done at 192 cancer centres in 23 countries, in patients aged 18 years and older with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had not received previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of interactive voice response or integrated web response technology to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6 [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan] intravenously every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab or cetuximab). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (previously reported) and overall survival (data to be reported at the time of the final analysis). HRQOL outcomes were evaluated as prespecified exploratory endpoints. The analysis population comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one HRQOL assessment. HRQOL outcomes were mean change from baseline to prespecified week 18 in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) scale and item scores, and in the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale and health utility scores; the proportion of patients with improved, stable, or deteriorated scores from baseline to prespecified week 18 in EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and items; and time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning, social functioning, and fatigue scores and EORTC QLQ-CR29 urinary incontinence scores. The threshold for a small and clinically meaningful mean difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 score was 5–8 points. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002 and is ongoing; recruitment is closed. Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 307 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). The HRQOL analysis population comprised 294 patients (152 receiving pembrolizumab and 142 receiving chemotherapy). As of Feb 19, 2020, median time from randomisation to data cutoff was 32·4 months (IQR 27·7–37·8). Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to prespecified week 18 showed a clinically meaningful improvement in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL scores with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (between-group LSM difference 8·96 [95% CI 4·24–13·69]; two-sided nominal p=0·0002). Median time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for GHS/QOL (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·38–0·98]; one-sided nominal p=0·019), physical functioning (0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·81]; one-sided nominal p=0·0016), social functioning (0·53 [95% CI 0·32–0·87]; one-sided nominal p=0·0050), and fatigue scores (0·48 [95% CI 0·33–0·69]; one-sided nominal p<0·0001). Pembrolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL compared with chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These data, along with the previously reported clinical benefits, support pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment option for this population. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Patients with unfavourable subset cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis when treated with standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Whether first-line treatment guided by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can improve outcomes is unknown. The CUPISCO trial was designed to inform a molecularly guided treatment strategy to improve outcomes over standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of molecularly guided therapy (MGT) versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. This was to determine whether the inclusion of CGP in the initial diagnostic work-up leads to improved outcomes over the current standard of care. We herein report the primary analysis. CUPISCO was a phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre trial done at 159 sites in 34 countries outside the USA. Patients with central eligibility review-confirmed disease (acceptable histologies included adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, evaluated by CGP, who reached disease control after three cycles of standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:1 via a block-stratified randomisation procedure to MGT versus chemotherapy continuation for at least three further cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498521, and follow-up is ongoing. From July 10, 2018, to Dec 9, 2022, 636 (42%) of 1505 screened patients were enrolled. Median follow-up in the treatment period was 24·1 months (IQR 11·6–35·6). Of 438 patients who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, 436 were randomly assigned: 326 (75%) to the MGT group and 110 (25%) to the chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·7–6·5) in the MGT group versus 4·4 months (4·1–5·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·56–0·92]; p=0·0079). Related adverse event rates per 100-patient-years at risk were generally similar or lower with MGT versus chemotherapy. In patients with previously untreated, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, CGP with subsequent MGTs resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard platinum-based chemotherapy. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CGP is performed at initial diagnosis in patients with unfavourable CUP. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Background: We reviewed outcomes of short and long-term chemotherapy with or without breaks in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Methods: PDAC patients receiving ≥3 chemotherapy cycles between 2019 and 2024 at three institutions were included. Progression-free survival after first-line chemotherapy (PFS1), overall survival (OS) and best overall response (BOR) to chemotherapy were assessed using the Wilcoxon test, Kaplan–Meier test, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Results: We screened 237 patients, and 135 patients met the study criteria. Among these patients, 25 had resectable disease, and 110 had unresectable/metastatic disease (13% borderline resectable (BRPC), 20% locally advanced (LAPC), 10% localised developing metastases, 57% de novo metastatic). Ten patients (7%) underwent genetic profiling; KRAS aberrations (N = 4), actionable PLAB2/BRCA2/FGFR2 mutations (N = 3), ATM/BRIP1 alteration (N = 1). Two patients were managed with PARP inhibitors after receiving multiple lines of chemotherapy. Median PFS1 and OS were concordant with the published literature, but select patient groups achieved prolonged survival outcomes. Among the 36 BRPC/LAPC patients, we observed >1-year PFS1 in 9 (25%) patients and >2-year OS in 3 (8%) patients. Among the 63 de novo metastatic patients, we observed >1-year PFS1 and >2-year OS in 6 (10%) patients. Among patients with localised disease, smoking history was a poor prognostic factor with respect to OS (p = 0.03). Improved PFS1 and OS was associated with ≥6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, its duration of ≥3.66 months, and local treatment after first chemotherapy (p < 0.05 for all). Stereotactic body radiotherapy following first-line chemotherapy was delivered in N = 6 (27%) and N = 1 (7%) of patients with LAPC and BRPC, respectively. Chemotherapy interruption duration, but not number, was associated with PFS1 and OS only in the localised cohort (p < 0.05). In patients with de novo metastatic disease, prevalence of type 2 diabetes was adversely associated with OS (p = 0.03). Improved PFS and OS was associated with ≥6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, its duration of ≥4.37 months, and BOR to it (only in this cohort) (p < 0.05 for all). A favourable OS was associated with >1 line of chemotherapy (p = 0.003). Conclusion: Despite challenges, extended chemotherapy and multiple treatment lines may improve survival, with localised treatments benefiting select patients.

Background Biomarkers of systemic inflammation have been shown to predict outcomes in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We sought to validate these findings in patients with confirmed CUP (cCUP) and explore their role alongside existing clinicopathological prognostic categories. Patients and Methods CUP oncologist from across the United Kingdom were invited to include patients with cCUP referred to their local CUP multidisciplinary team. Patient demographics, clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded and analysed. Results Data were available for 548 patients from four CUP services. 23% (n = 124) of patients met clinicopathological criteria for favourable‐risk cCUP. On multivariate analysis c‐reactive protein (CRP) (p < 0.001) and the Scottish Inflammatory Prognostic Score (SIPS: combining albumin and neutrophil count) (p < 0.001) were independently predictive of survival. CRP and SIPS effectively stratified survival in patients with both favourable‐risk and poor‐risk cCUP based on clinicopathological features. Conclusions Biomarkers of systemic inflammation are reliable prognostic factors in patients with cCUP, regardless of clinicopathological subgroup. We recommend that CRP or SIPS are incorporated into routine clinical assessments of patients with cCUP as a tool to aid investigation and/or treatment decision‐making across all groups. Established clinicopathological factors can then be used to inform management pathways and specific systemic anticancer therapy selection.

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. We report results from the post hoc analysis of patients who were enrolled in Asia from the final analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE‐177 study which 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). Median PFS was not reached (NR) with pembrolizumab versus 10.4 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–1.20]), median OS was NR versus 30.0 months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27–1.55), ORR was 50% versus 46%, and grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were reported by two patients (9%) versus 20 (80%). These data support first‐line pembrolizumab as a standard of care for patients from Asia with MSI‐H/dMMR mCRC.

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is associated with poor outcomes and limited treatment options, leading to increased use of targeted therapies for its management. Here, we performed one of the largest single-centre reviews evaluating outcomes following personalised targeted agents in CCA patients. Methods: All consecutive CCA patients receiving systemic therapy between January 2010 and April 2023 at UCLH were included. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate treatment response, survival outcomes and predictors of clinical benefit in CCA patients treated with molecularly guided therapies. Patient demographic factors, disease characteristics and survival outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models. Results: Of the 227 consecutive CCA patients, 162 (71%) had molecular profiling, of whom 56 (35%) were eligible and 55 received molecular-targeted treatment. CCA histological classifications comprised intrahepatic (N = 32), extrahepatic (N = 11), hilar (N = 4) and unknown (N = 9) subtypes. Most patients received targeted agents based on genomic profiling in a second treatment line setting (N = 34). Frequently observed genomic alterations occurred in the FGFR2 (N = 21), IDH1 (N = 7) and BRCA2 (N = 6) genes. Median progression-free survival (PFS) following first-, second- and third-line systemic therapy and overall survival (OS) were 8.44 (95% CI, 7.49–12.78), 5.65 (95% CI, 3.71–7.13), 5.55 (2.79–12.58) and 29.01 (24.21–42.91) months, respectively. CCA subtype and FGFR/BRCA molecular aberration status were not associated with PFS or OS. However, a prior CCA-related surgical history was predictive of OS (p = 0.02). Stratification by best overall response to second-line targeted agents demonstrated an association with PFS (p = 0.002) and OS (p = 0.02). Duration of treatment with second-line targeted therapy was associated with OS (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients receiving targeted therapeutics achieved promising outcomes, especially those attaining a favourable treatment response and those receiving targeted agents for longer periods. Liquid biopsies can reliably provide information on extended molecular profiling to aid patient selection for personalised therapies.

Background The standard first- and second- line chemotherapy backbone regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based with addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Until recently, evidence for optimal sequencing post second-line was sparse. Trifluridine/tipiracil (indicated for mCRC and gastric cancer after standard chemotherapies) was made available to UK patients via a named patient programme (NPP) before receiving marketing authorisation in Europe in 2016, allowing characterisation of UK treatment pathways, and evaluation of trifluridine/tipiracil in a UK non-trial population. Methods Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s). Results Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0–69.0) and 62.0 (54.8–69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8–2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4–2.9) months. Conclusions The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.

Background: This study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without. Methods: We retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March–30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity. Results: The median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4–2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68–23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer. Conclusion: A diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.