Journal of Clinical Oncology最新文献

Purpose: Despite advances in immunotherapy, unresectable recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) carries a poor prognosis, and effective treatments are needed. As nectin-4 is widely expressed in HNC, enfortumab vedotin (EV), a nectin-4-directed antibody-drug conjugate, was explored in HNC in EV-202 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04225117).

Methods: This open-label, multicohort, phase II study evaluated intravenous EV 1.25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. In the HNC cohort, eligible patients had recurrent/metastatic HNC and had received platinum-based therapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1. Secondary end points were investigator-assessed duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and safety.

Results: The primary analysis included 46 patients; all received EV (median follow-up, 9.3 months). Most patients (52.2%) had ≥3 previous lines of systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. Confirmed ORR was 23.9%, DCR was 56.5%, and median DOR was not reached (median DOR was 9.4 months at a later data cutoff [median follow-up, 11.3 months]). Median PFS and OS were 3.9 and 6.0 months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring in >20% of patients were alopecia (28.3%), fatigue (26.1%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (23.9%). Sixteen patients (34.8%) experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs; anemia and decreased neutrophil count occurred in ≥1 patient (both n = 2; 4.3%).

Conclusion: EV demonstrated antitumor activity in heavily pretreated HNC. Safety was consistent with the known safety profile of EV; no new safety signals were identified. These data support further evaluation of EV for advanced HNC not amenable to definitive local therapy.

Purpose: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of onvansertib, a polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) inhibitor, in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) + bevacizumab for the second-line treatment of KRAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients and methods: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with KRAS-mutated mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil with or without bevacizumab. Patients received onvansertib (15 mg/m² once daily on days 1-5 and 15-19 of a 28-day cycle) and FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (days 1 and 15). The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and tolerability. Translational and preclinical studies were conducted in KRAS-mutant CRC.

Results: Among the 53 patients treated, the confirmed ORR was 26.4% (95% CI, 15.3 to 40.3). The median DOR was 11.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to not reached). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 62% of patients. A post hoc analysis revealed that patients with no prior bevacizumab treatment had a significantly higher ORR and longer PFS compared with patients with prior bevacizumab treatment: ORR of 76.9% versus 10.0% (odds ratio of 30.0, P < .001) and median PFS of 14.9 months versus 6.6 months (hazard ratio of 0.16, P < .001). Our translational findings support that prior bevacizumab exposure contributes to onvansertib resistance. Preclinically, we showed that onvansertib inhibited the hypoxia pathway and exhibited robust antitumor activity in combination with bevacizumab through the inhibition of angiogenesis.

Conclusion: Onvansertib in combination with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab showed significant activity in the second-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutant mCRC, particularly in patients with no prior bevacizumab treatment. These findings led to the evaluation of the combination in the first-line setting (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT06106308).

Purpose: Second primary cancer (SPC) risks after breast cancer (BC) in BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers are uncertain. We estimated relative and absolute risks using a novel linkage of genetic testing data to population-scale National Disease Registration Service and Hospital Episode Statistics electronic health records.

Methods: We followed 25,811 females and 480 males diagnosed with BC and tested for germline BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs in NHS Clinical Genetics centers in England between 1995 and 2019 until SPC diagnosis, death, migration, contralateral breast/ovarian surgery plus 1 year, or the 31st of December 2020. We estimated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) using English population incidences, hazard ratios (HRs) comparing carriers to noncarriers using Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier 10-year cumulative risks.

Results: There were 1,840 BRCA1 and 1,750 BRCA2 female PV carriers. Compared with population incidences, BRCA1 carriers had elevated contralateral BC (CBC; SIR, 15.6 [95% CI, 11.8 to 20.2]), ovarian (SIR, 44.0 [95% CI, 31.4 to 59.9]), combined nonbreast/ovarian (SIR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.59 to 2.92]), colorectal (SIR, 4.80 [95% CI, 2.62 to 8.05]), and endometrial (SIR, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.07 to 6.35]) SPC risks. BRCA2 carriers had elevated CBC (SIR, 7.70 [95% CI, 5.45 to 10.6]), ovarian (SIR, 16.8 [95% CI, 10.3 to 26.0]), pancreatic (SIR, 5.42 [95% CI, 2.09 to 12.5]), and combined nonbreast/ovarian (SIR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.23]) SPC risks. Compared with females without BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs on testing, BRCA1 carriers had elevated CBC (HR, 3.60 [95% CI, 2.65 to 4.90]), ovarian (HR, 33.0 [95% CI, 19.1 to 57.1]), combined nonbreast/ovarian (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.01]), and colorectal (HR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.53 to 5.62]) SPC risks. BRCA2 carriers had elevated CBC (HR, 2.40 [95% CI, 1.70 to 3.40]), ovarian (HR, 12.0 [95% CI, 6.70 to 21.5]), and pancreatic (HR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.34 to 9.48]) SPC risks. Ten-year cumulative CBC, ovarian, and combined nonbreast/ovarian cancer risks were 16%/6.3%/7.8% (BRCA1 carriers), 12%/3.0%/6.2% (BRCA2 carriers), and 3.6%/0.4%/4.9% (noncarriers). Male BRCA2 carriers had higher CBC (HR, 13.1 [95% CI, 1.19 to 146]) and prostate (HR, 5.61 [95% CI, 1.96 to 16.0]) SPC risks than noncarriers.

Conclusion: Survivors of BC carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are at high SPC risk. They may benefit from enhanced surveillance and risk-reduction measures.

Phase III trials that randomly assign patients to a control treatment (C), an experimental treatment (A), or a combination treatment (AB) should be designed with the goal to recommend the best treatment: AB (if it is better than A and C), A (if it is better than C, and AB is not better than A), or C (if neither AB nor A is better than C). However, this goal can be challenging to achieve with statistical confidence. We performed a survey of cancer trials published in five journals from January 2018 to May 2024 to assess the trial designs being used in this setting and found that three quarters of them did not have a provision for a formal comparison of the AB treatment arm with the A treatment arm, a possible shortcoming. A limited simulation evaluates two analysis strategies that incorporate an AB versus A comparison and is used to formulate some recommendations for designing these types of trials.

Purpose: Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response.

Methods: Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells-nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM.

Results: Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% v 10.2%; P ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR (v TME at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% v 87%; P = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages (P ≤ .009).

Conclusion: Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.