TBD Meeting (3660-23)

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A novel four-drug chemotherapy regimen improved survival outcomes compared with standard therapy in patients with metastatic metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in a global phase 3 trial dubbed NAPOLI-3.

Liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxaliplatin (together known as NALIRIFOX) extended both overall and progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel when used as first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with mPDAC.

“These results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as a new regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic PDAC,” said lead study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and codirector of the UCLA GI Oncology Program. “This study indicates that the more aggressive chemotherapy approach should be considered for those patients who are able to tolerate it.”

The findings were presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin has been approved in both the United States and Europe for patients with mPDAC who experience disease progression after treatment with gemcitabine-based therapy. This new trial investigated the approach as a first-line option.

It involved 770 patients who were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m²; days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycle) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² plus nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² (days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycle).

Most patients in both study arms were male (53.3% and 59.4% for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX recipient vs. the control group, respectively), had at least three metastatic sites (38.9% and 36.4%), had liver metastases (80.2% and 80.4%), and had their main tumor located outside the head of the pancreas (61.6% and 59.7%).

Most patients (65% in both arms) were treated outside of North America and East Asia.

“This is truly a global study, enrolling in over 20 countries, with a mix of both academic and community centers,” said Dr. Wainberg.

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred.

“The study met its primary endpoint of overall survival by improving the median from 9.2 months with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel to 11.1 months with NALIFIROX-treated group,” said Dr. Wainberg. “The hazard ratio was 0.84, with a P value of .04.”

Significant improvement was also observed in progression-free survival: 7.4 months for NALIFIROX vs. 5.6 months for gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).

The overall response rate for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine was 41.8% vs. 36.2%, and the complete response rate was 0.3% in both arms.

Dr. Wainberg noted that about half of the patients in both groups underwent subsequent anticancer therapy (50.5% vs. 54.4%); this included systemic treatments, surgery, and radiation therapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in both groups included diarrhea (20.3% vs. 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs. 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs. 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs. 17.4%), and neutropenia (14.1% vs. 24.5%).

“When one looks at the nuances in the patients and the toxicity profiles, we can see these two regimens have very different toxicity profiles,” Dr. Wainberg said. “There was also less peripheral neuropathy seen in the NALIRIFOX arm relative to the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine arm.”

The differences in the toxicity profiles were related to the mechanisms of action, Dr. Wainberg explained. “No new safety concerns with the NALIRIFOX regimen were identified.”
 

New reference regimen

Dr. Wainberg concluded that the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. “Hopefully it’s something we can build off of in the future.”

Discussant for this paper, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, associate professor of medicine and the executive medical director for the Cancer Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed.

For “fit patients, these results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” she said.

“It is the new standard for fit patients,” she added.

She also agreed with the authors’ conclusion that NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in overall and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine.

“The safety profile of NALIRFOX was manageable and consistent with the treatment components,” she said. “Both regimens had high toxicity rates, but their toxicity profiles were different.”

Dr. Goff pointed out that high rates of toxicity were seen in both arms, “despite the reputation that gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel is a significantly easier regimen to tolerate. I would argue that these data do not necessarily support that.”

The study was funded by Ipsen. Dr. Wainberg reported relationships with Amgen, Arcus Bioscience, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Plexxikon, PureTech, QED Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics. Most of the other sudy authors had disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel four-drug chemotherapy regimen improved survival outcomes compared with standard therapy in patients with metastatic metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in a global phase 3 trial dubbed NAPOLI-3.

Liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxaliplatin (together known as NALIRIFOX) extended both overall and progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel when used as first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with mPDAC.

“These results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as a new regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic PDAC,” said lead study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and codirector of the UCLA GI Oncology Program. “This study indicates that the more aggressive chemotherapy approach should be considered for those patients who are able to tolerate it.”

The findings were presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin has been approved in both the United States and Europe for patients with mPDAC who experience disease progression after treatment with gemcitabine-based therapy. This new trial investigated the approach as a first-line option.

It involved 770 patients who were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m²; days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycle) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² plus nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² (days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycle).

Most patients in both study arms were male (53.3% and 59.4% for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX recipient vs. the control group, respectively), had at least three metastatic sites (38.9% and 36.4%), had liver metastases (80.2% and 80.4%), and had their main tumor located outside the head of the pancreas (61.6% and 59.7%).

Most patients (65% in both arms) were treated outside of North America and East Asia.

“This is truly a global study, enrolling in over 20 countries, with a mix of both academic and community centers,” said Dr. Wainberg.

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred.

“The study met its primary endpoint of overall survival by improving the median from 9.2 months with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel to 11.1 months with NALIFIROX-treated group,” said Dr. Wainberg. “The hazard ratio was 0.84, with a P value of .04.”

Significant improvement was also observed in progression-free survival: 7.4 months for NALIFIROX vs. 5.6 months for gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).

The overall response rate for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine was 41.8% vs. 36.2%, and the complete response rate was 0.3% in both arms.

Dr. Wainberg noted that about half of the patients in both groups underwent subsequent anticancer therapy (50.5% vs. 54.4%); this included systemic treatments, surgery, and radiation therapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in both groups included diarrhea (20.3% vs. 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs. 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs. 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs. 17.4%), and neutropenia (14.1% vs. 24.5%).

“When one looks at the nuances in the patients and the toxicity profiles, we can see these two regimens have very different toxicity profiles,” Dr. Wainberg said. “There was also less peripheral neuropathy seen in the NALIRIFOX arm relative to the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine arm.”

The differences in the toxicity profiles were related to the mechanisms of action, Dr. Wainberg explained. “No new safety concerns with the NALIRIFOX regimen were identified.”
 

New reference regimen

Dr. Wainberg concluded that the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. “Hopefully it’s something we can build off of in the future.”

Discussant for this paper, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, associate professor of medicine and the executive medical director for the Cancer Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed.

For “fit patients, these results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” she said.

“It is the new standard for fit patients,” she added.

She also agreed with the authors’ conclusion that NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in overall and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine.

“The safety profile of NALIRFOX was manageable and consistent with the treatment components,” she said. “Both regimens had high toxicity rates, but their toxicity profiles were different.”

Dr. Goff pointed out that high rates of toxicity were seen in both arms, “despite the reputation that gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel is a significantly easier regimen to tolerate. I would argue that these data do not necessarily support that.”

The study was funded by Ipsen. Dr. Wainberg reported relationships with Amgen, Arcus Bioscience, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Plexxikon, PureTech, QED Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics. Most of the other sudy authors had disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel four-drug chemotherapy regimen improved survival outcomes compared with standard therapy in patients with metastatic metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in a global phase 3 trial dubbed NAPOLI-3.

Liposomal irinotecan (Onivyde) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxaliplatin (together known as NALIRIFOX) extended both overall and progression-free survival compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel when used as first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with mPDAC.

“These results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as a new regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic PDAC,” said lead study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, professor of medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and codirector of the UCLA GI Oncology Program. “This study indicates that the more aggressive chemotherapy approach should be considered for those patients who are able to tolerate it.”

The findings were presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin has been approved in both the United States and Europe for patients with mPDAC who experience disease progression after treatment with gemcitabine-based therapy. This new trial investigated the approach as a first-line option.

It involved 770 patients who were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m²; days 1 and 15 of 28-day cycle) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² plus nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² (days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycle).

Most patients in both study arms were male (53.3% and 59.4% for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX recipient vs. the control group, respectively), had at least three metastatic sites (38.9% and 36.4%), had liver metastases (80.2% and 80.4%), and had their main tumor located outside the head of the pancreas (61.6% and 59.7%).

Most patients (65% in both arms) were treated outside of North America and East Asia.

“This is truly a global study, enrolling in over 20 countries, with a mix of both academic and community centers,” said Dr. Wainberg.

At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred.

“The study met its primary endpoint of overall survival by improving the median from 9.2 months with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel to 11.1 months with NALIFIROX-treated group,” said Dr. Wainberg. “The hazard ratio was 0.84, with a P value of .04.”

Significant improvement was also observed in progression-free survival: 7.4 months for NALIFIROX vs. 5.6 months for gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 0.69; P < .0001).

The overall response rate for liposomal irinotecan/NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine was 41.8% vs. 36.2%, and the complete response rate was 0.3% in both arms.

Dr. Wainberg noted that about half of the patients in both groups underwent subsequent anticancer therapy (50.5% vs. 54.4%); this included systemic treatments, surgery, and radiation therapy.

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 10% of patients in both groups included diarrhea (20.3% vs. 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs. 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs. 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs. 17.4%), and neutropenia (14.1% vs. 24.5%).

“When one looks at the nuances in the patients and the toxicity profiles, we can see these two regimens have very different toxicity profiles,” Dr. Wainberg said. “There was also less peripheral neuropathy seen in the NALIRIFOX arm relative to the nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine arm.”

The differences in the toxicity profiles were related to the mechanisms of action, Dr. Wainberg explained. “No new safety concerns with the NALIRIFOX regimen were identified.”
 

New reference regimen

Dr. Wainberg concluded that the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. “Hopefully it’s something we can build off of in the future.”

Discussant for this paper, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, associate professor of medicine and the executive medical director for the Cancer Patient Care Center at Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., agreed.

For “fit patients, these results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” she said.

“It is the new standard for fit patients,” she added.

She also agreed with the authors’ conclusion that NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in overall and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine.

“The safety profile of NALIRFOX was manageable and consistent with the treatment components,” she said. “Both regimens had high toxicity rates, but their toxicity profiles were different.”

Dr. Goff pointed out that high rates of toxicity were seen in both arms, “despite the reputation that gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel is a significantly easier regimen to tolerate. I would argue that these data do not necessarily support that.”

The study was funded by Ipsen. Dr. Wainberg reported relationships with Amgen, Arcus Bioscience, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Plexxikon, PureTech, QED Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics. Most of the other sudy authors had disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – SUNLIGHT “is the first phase 3 study in the setting of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival versus an active control,” say the trial investigators. An expert not involved in the study predicted that it will change clinical practice.

The results show that adding bevacizumab to trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) significantly improved survival, compared with those who received FTD/TPI alone. Median overall survival was 10.8 months in the investigational arm vs 7.5 months among controls (hazard ratio, 0.61; P < .001).

Adding bevacizumab also did not increase the risk for serious adverse events or events that led to treatment discontinuation, the researchers noted.

The new data were presented by Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, head of the department of medical oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, and director of the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023. He concluded that bevacizumab added to FTD/TPI “represents a new standard of care for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer who had previously progressed after two lines of therapy.”

Discussant for the abstract, Dustin Deming, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the findings showed very “exciting advantages in progression-free and overall survival.” He agreed that “FTD/TPI and bevacizumab should be considered the preferred nontargeted regimen in the refractory setting” and added that “this trial does change standard clinical practice.”

Dr. Deming also said that this has implications for future clinical trials because these results create a new standard for control arms.
 

Improvement in all endpoints

FTD/TPI, which is marketed as Lonsurf, is already approved as a monotherapy for third-line use in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and bevacizumab is an established anticancer agent that targets vascular endothelial growth factor and inhibits angiogenesis, he explained. The combination of bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI has previously produced encouraging results in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in smaller phase 2 randomized and single-arm studies.

“The phase 3 SUNLIGHT study was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FTD/TPI alone, in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer following two chemotherapy regimens,” said Dr. Tabernero.

The cohort included 492 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab (FTD/TPI 35 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 [28-day cycle] and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) or FTD/TPI alone.

Across both arms, most patients (72%) had already received prior treatment with bevacizumab.

At 6 months, the overall survival rate was 77% with the combination therapy versus 61% with the control therapy, and after 12 months, the overall survival rate was 43% versus 30%.

Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the treatment arm versus 2.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P < .001). At 6 months, progression-free survival was 43% versus 16%, respectively, and at 12 months, it was 16% versus 1%.

Both overall response rate and disease control rate were also superior in the investigational arm. The overall response rate was 6.3% versus 0.0% in the control arm, with an absolute gain of 5.4% (P = .004). Similarly, the absolute gain for disease control rate was 29.6% (76.6% vs. 47.0%; P < .001).

For quality of life, worsening in global health status in the investigational arm was significantly delayed, compared with the control arm (8.5 months vs. 4.7 months; HR, 0.50; P < .001), as was worsening to an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or greater (9.3 months vs. 6.3 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001).

When looking at toxicity, Tabernero reported that there were no treatment-related deaths and the rates of severe adverse events were similar in both groups: 72% in the FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab group versus 70% among controls.

“The safety profile was manageable and consistent with the individual safety profiles of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab,” said Dr. Tabernero.

Overall, adverse events were comparable in both groups, except for slightly higher rates in the bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI arm for hypertension (10% vs. 2%), nausea (37% vs. 27%), and neutropenia (62% vs. 51%).

The study was sponsored by Taiho Oncology, manufacturer of Lonsurf (trifluridine plus tipiracil). Dr. Tabernero and Dr. Deming both reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Several of the study authors also reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – SUNLIGHT “is the first phase 3 study in the setting of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival versus an active control,” say the trial investigators. An expert not involved in the study predicted that it will change clinical practice.

The results show that adding bevacizumab to trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) significantly improved survival, compared with those who received FTD/TPI alone. Median overall survival was 10.8 months in the investigational arm vs 7.5 months among controls (hazard ratio, 0.61; P < .001).

Adding bevacizumab also did not increase the risk for serious adverse events or events that led to treatment discontinuation, the researchers noted.

The new data were presented by Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, head of the department of medical oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, and director of the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023. He concluded that bevacizumab added to FTD/TPI “represents a new standard of care for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer who had previously progressed after two lines of therapy.”

Discussant for the abstract, Dustin Deming, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the findings showed very “exciting advantages in progression-free and overall survival.” He agreed that “FTD/TPI and bevacizumab should be considered the preferred nontargeted regimen in the refractory setting” and added that “this trial does change standard clinical practice.”

Dr. Deming also said that this has implications for future clinical trials because these results create a new standard for control arms.
 

Improvement in all endpoints

FTD/TPI, which is marketed as Lonsurf, is already approved as a monotherapy for third-line use in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and bevacizumab is an established anticancer agent that targets vascular endothelial growth factor and inhibits angiogenesis, he explained. The combination of bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI has previously produced encouraging results in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in smaller phase 2 randomized and single-arm studies.

“The phase 3 SUNLIGHT study was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FTD/TPI alone, in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer following two chemotherapy regimens,” said Dr. Tabernero.

The cohort included 492 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab (FTD/TPI 35 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 [28-day cycle] and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) or FTD/TPI alone.

Across both arms, most patients (72%) had already received prior treatment with bevacizumab.

At 6 months, the overall survival rate was 77% with the combination therapy versus 61% with the control therapy, and after 12 months, the overall survival rate was 43% versus 30%.

Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the treatment arm versus 2.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P < .001). At 6 months, progression-free survival was 43% versus 16%, respectively, and at 12 months, it was 16% versus 1%.

Both overall response rate and disease control rate were also superior in the investigational arm. The overall response rate was 6.3% versus 0.0% in the control arm, with an absolute gain of 5.4% (P = .004). Similarly, the absolute gain for disease control rate was 29.6% (76.6% vs. 47.0%; P < .001).

For quality of life, worsening in global health status in the investigational arm was significantly delayed, compared with the control arm (8.5 months vs. 4.7 months; HR, 0.50; P < .001), as was worsening to an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or greater (9.3 months vs. 6.3 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001).

When looking at toxicity, Tabernero reported that there were no treatment-related deaths and the rates of severe adverse events were similar in both groups: 72% in the FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab group versus 70% among controls.

“The safety profile was manageable and consistent with the individual safety profiles of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab,” said Dr. Tabernero.

Overall, adverse events were comparable in both groups, except for slightly higher rates in the bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI arm for hypertension (10% vs. 2%), nausea (37% vs. 27%), and neutropenia (62% vs. 51%).

The study was sponsored by Taiho Oncology, manufacturer of Lonsurf (trifluridine plus tipiracil). Dr. Tabernero and Dr. Deming both reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Several of the study authors also reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – SUNLIGHT “is the first phase 3 study in the setting of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival versus an active control,” say the trial investigators. An expert not involved in the study predicted that it will change clinical practice.

The results show that adding bevacizumab to trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) significantly improved survival, compared with those who received FTD/TPI alone. Median overall survival was 10.8 months in the investigational arm vs 7.5 months among controls (hazard ratio, 0.61; P < .001).

Adding bevacizumab also did not increase the risk for serious adverse events or events that led to treatment discontinuation, the researchers noted.

The new data were presented by Josep Tabernero, MD, PhD, head of the department of medical oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, and director of the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023. He concluded that bevacizumab added to FTD/TPI “represents a new standard of care for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer who had previously progressed after two lines of therapy.”

Discussant for the abstract, Dustin Deming, MD, an associate professor in the division of hematology, medical oncology and palliative care at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the findings showed very “exciting advantages in progression-free and overall survival.” He agreed that “FTD/TPI and bevacizumab should be considered the preferred nontargeted regimen in the refractory setting” and added that “this trial does change standard clinical practice.”

Dr. Deming also said that this has implications for future clinical trials because these results create a new standard for control arms.
 

Improvement in all endpoints

FTD/TPI, which is marketed as Lonsurf, is already approved as a monotherapy for third-line use in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, and bevacizumab is an established anticancer agent that targets vascular endothelial growth factor and inhibits angiogenesis, he explained. The combination of bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI has previously produced encouraging results in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in smaller phase 2 randomized and single-arm studies.

“The phase 3 SUNLIGHT study was designed to confirm the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FTD/TPI alone, in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer following two chemotherapy regimens,” said Dr. Tabernero.

The cohort included 492 patients who were randomly assigned to receive either FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab (FTD/TPI 35 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 [28-day cycle] and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) or FTD/TPI alone.

Across both arms, most patients (72%) had already received prior treatment with bevacizumab.

At 6 months, the overall survival rate was 77% with the combination therapy versus 61% with the control therapy, and after 12 months, the overall survival rate was 43% versus 30%.

Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the treatment arm versus 2.4 months in the control arm (HR, 0.44; P < .001). At 6 months, progression-free survival was 43% versus 16%, respectively, and at 12 months, it was 16% versus 1%.

Both overall response rate and disease control rate were also superior in the investigational arm. The overall response rate was 6.3% versus 0.0% in the control arm, with an absolute gain of 5.4% (P = .004). Similarly, the absolute gain for disease control rate was 29.6% (76.6% vs. 47.0%; P < .001).

For quality of life, worsening in global health status in the investigational arm was significantly delayed, compared with the control arm (8.5 months vs. 4.7 months; HR, 0.50; P < .001), as was worsening to an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or greater (9.3 months vs. 6.3 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001).

When looking at toxicity, Tabernero reported that there were no treatment-related deaths and the rates of severe adverse events were similar in both groups: 72% in the FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab group versus 70% among controls.

“The safety profile was manageable and consistent with the individual safety profiles of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab,” said Dr. Tabernero.

Overall, adverse events were comparable in both groups, except for slightly higher rates in the bevacizumab plus FTD/TPI arm for hypertension (10% vs. 2%), nausea (37% vs. 27%), and neutropenia (62% vs. 51%).

The study was sponsored by Taiho Oncology, manufacturer of Lonsurf (trifluridine plus tipiracil). Dr. Tabernero and Dr. Deming both reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Several of the study authors also reported conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to sorafenib produced better outcomes among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) than sorafenib alone, according to new findings.

The use of SBRT in this setting improved both overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). There was no increase in adverse events with the addition of SBRT, and results trended toward a quality-of-life benefit at 6 months.

“This adds to the body of evidence for the role of external-beam radiation, bringing SBRT to the armamentarium of treatment options for patients – particularly those with locally advanced HCC and macrovascular invasion, especially if they are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs],” said lead study author Laura A. Dawson, MD, a clinician scientist at the Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

Dr. Dawson presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Approached for an outside comment, Mary Feng, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “This study is really groundbreaking.”

She added that the investigators should be congratulated for executing this ambitious study with worldwide enrollment for a serious disease.

“There are very few studies demonstrating an overall survival benefit from radiation or any local control modality,” she told this news organization. She suggested that the survival benefit seen in this trial was “likely due to the high percentage of patients (74%) with macrovascular invasion, who stand to benefit the most from treatment.

“This study has established the standard of adding SBRT to patients who are treated with TKIs and raises the question of whether adding SBRT to immunotherapy would also result in a survival benefit. This next question must also be tested in a prospective clinical trial,” she said.
 

Study details

At the study’s inception, sorafenib was the standard of care for patients who were unable to undergo surgery, ablation, and/or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Dr. Dawson explained that sorafenib had been shown to improve median overall survival, although there was less benefit if macrovascular invasion was present.

“Integrating radiation strategies in HCC management has been a key question over the past few decades,” she said.

In the current study, Dr. Dawson and colleagues added SBRT to sorafenib. The cohort included 177 patients with new or recurrent HCC who were not candidates for surgery, ablation, or TACE. They were randomly assigned to receive either sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in five fractions) followed by sorafenib 200 mg twice daily; the dosage was then increased to 400 mg twice daily after 28 days.
 

SBRT improves outcomes

The original plan was to enroll 292 participants, but accrual closed early when the standard of care for systemic treatment of HCC changed following the results of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial, which showed the superiority of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as frontline therapy for locally advanced or metastatic HCC. The closure of accrual was agreed upon by the investigators and the data safety monitoring committee, and their statistical analysis plan was revised accordingly. The study became time driven rather than event driven, she noted. This resulted in a decrease from 80% power to 65% power.

The median age of participants was 66 years (range, 27-84 years); 41% had hepatitis C, and 19% had hepatitis B or B/C. Additionally, 82% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease, and 74% had macrovascular invasion.

The median follow-up was 13.2 months overall and 33.7 months for living patients.

Median overall survival improved from 12.3 months with sorafenib alone to 15.8 months with the addition of SBRT to the regimen (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77; one-sided P = .0554). A prespecified multivariable analysis showed that the combination therapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival after adjustment for confounders (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

Similarly, median PFS also improved from 5.5 months with sorafenib alone to 9.2 months with SBRT and sorafenib (HR = 0.55; two-sided P = .0001).

With regard to safety, gastrointestinal bleeds occurred in 4% of patients in the combination arm, vs. 6% of those in the monotherapy arm. Overall, rates of treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events did not significantly differ between study arms (42% vs. 47%; P = .52). There were three grade 5 events; two in the sorafenib-only group and one in the SBRT/sorafenib group.

The researchers also evaluated quality of life (QoL). “Our hypothesis was that patients treated with SBRT and sorafenib would have improved quality of life 6 months after the start of treatment compared to sorafenib alone,” said Dr. Dawson.

About half (47%) of participants agreed to fill out QoL assessments, but baseline and 6-month data were available for only about 21% of participants. Although the numbers were considered too small to analyze statistically, substantial improvement was seen in the group that received combination therapy. A total of 10% of patients who received sorafenib reported improvement on the FACT-Hep score, vs. 35% of patients who received SBRT/sorafenib.

“As compared to sorafenib, SBRT improved overall survival and progression-free survival, with no observed increase in adverse events in patients with advanced HCC,” concluded Dr. Dawson.
 

Where does radiation fit?

Invited discussant Laura Goff, MD, associate professor of medicine, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., reiterated that SBRT given prior to sorafenib improved outcomes compared to sorafenib alone, and while not definitive, Quality and Outcomes Framework scores appeared to improve at 6 months for the combination arm. “This reassures our concerns about toxicity,” she said.

Dr. Goff pointed out that since the study closed early, owing to changes in standard of care for HCC, the question arises – where does radiation fit in the array of options now available for HCC?

“For one, sorafenib plus SBRT represents an intriguing first-line option for patients who cannot be treated with immunotherapy, such as those who experience a posttransplant recurrence,” Dr. Goff said. “There is also renewed interest in radiation therapy in liver-dominant HCC, and there is active investigation ongoing for a variety of combinations.”

Dr. Dawson reported relationships with Merck and Raysearch. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to sorafenib produced better outcomes among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) than sorafenib alone, according to new findings.

The use of SBRT in this setting improved both overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). There was no increase in adverse events with the addition of SBRT, and results trended toward a quality-of-life benefit at 6 months.

“This adds to the body of evidence for the role of external-beam radiation, bringing SBRT to the armamentarium of treatment options for patients – particularly those with locally advanced HCC and macrovascular invasion, especially if they are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs],” said lead study author Laura A. Dawson, MD, a clinician scientist at the Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

Dr. Dawson presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Approached for an outside comment, Mary Feng, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “This study is really groundbreaking.”

She added that the investigators should be congratulated for executing this ambitious study with worldwide enrollment for a serious disease.

“There are very few studies demonstrating an overall survival benefit from radiation or any local control modality,” she told this news organization. She suggested that the survival benefit seen in this trial was “likely due to the high percentage of patients (74%) with macrovascular invasion, who stand to benefit the most from treatment.

“This study has established the standard of adding SBRT to patients who are treated with TKIs and raises the question of whether adding SBRT to immunotherapy would also result in a survival benefit. This next question must also be tested in a prospective clinical trial,” she said.
 

Study details

At the study’s inception, sorafenib was the standard of care for patients who were unable to undergo surgery, ablation, and/or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Dr. Dawson explained that sorafenib had been shown to improve median overall survival, although there was less benefit if macrovascular invasion was present.

“Integrating radiation strategies in HCC management has been a key question over the past few decades,” she said.

In the current study, Dr. Dawson and colleagues added SBRT to sorafenib. The cohort included 177 patients with new or recurrent HCC who were not candidates for surgery, ablation, or TACE. They were randomly assigned to receive either sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in five fractions) followed by sorafenib 200 mg twice daily; the dosage was then increased to 400 mg twice daily after 28 days.
 

SBRT improves outcomes

The original plan was to enroll 292 participants, but accrual closed early when the standard of care for systemic treatment of HCC changed following the results of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial, which showed the superiority of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as frontline therapy for locally advanced or metastatic HCC. The closure of accrual was agreed upon by the investigators and the data safety monitoring committee, and their statistical analysis plan was revised accordingly. The study became time driven rather than event driven, she noted. This resulted in a decrease from 80% power to 65% power.

The median age of participants was 66 years (range, 27-84 years); 41% had hepatitis C, and 19% had hepatitis B or B/C. Additionally, 82% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease, and 74% had macrovascular invasion.

The median follow-up was 13.2 months overall and 33.7 months for living patients.

Median overall survival improved from 12.3 months with sorafenib alone to 15.8 months with the addition of SBRT to the regimen (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77; one-sided P = .0554). A prespecified multivariable analysis showed that the combination therapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival after adjustment for confounders (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

Similarly, median PFS also improved from 5.5 months with sorafenib alone to 9.2 months with SBRT and sorafenib (HR = 0.55; two-sided P = .0001).

With regard to safety, gastrointestinal bleeds occurred in 4% of patients in the combination arm, vs. 6% of those in the monotherapy arm. Overall, rates of treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events did not significantly differ between study arms (42% vs. 47%; P = .52). There were three grade 5 events; two in the sorafenib-only group and one in the SBRT/sorafenib group.

The researchers also evaluated quality of life (QoL). “Our hypothesis was that patients treated with SBRT and sorafenib would have improved quality of life 6 months after the start of treatment compared to sorafenib alone,” said Dr. Dawson.

About half (47%) of participants agreed to fill out QoL assessments, but baseline and 6-month data were available for only about 21% of participants. Although the numbers were considered too small to analyze statistically, substantial improvement was seen in the group that received combination therapy. A total of 10% of patients who received sorafenib reported improvement on the FACT-Hep score, vs. 35% of patients who received SBRT/sorafenib.

“As compared to sorafenib, SBRT improved overall survival and progression-free survival, with no observed increase in adverse events in patients with advanced HCC,” concluded Dr. Dawson.
 

Where does radiation fit?

Invited discussant Laura Goff, MD, associate professor of medicine, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., reiterated that SBRT given prior to sorafenib improved outcomes compared to sorafenib alone, and while not definitive, Quality and Outcomes Framework scores appeared to improve at 6 months for the combination arm. “This reassures our concerns about toxicity,” she said.

Dr. Goff pointed out that since the study closed early, owing to changes in standard of care for HCC, the question arises – where does radiation fit in the array of options now available for HCC?

“For one, sorafenib plus SBRT represents an intriguing first-line option for patients who cannot be treated with immunotherapy, such as those who experience a posttransplant recurrence,” Dr. Goff said. “There is also renewed interest in radiation therapy in liver-dominant HCC, and there is active investigation ongoing for a variety of combinations.”

Dr. Dawson reported relationships with Merck and Raysearch. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to sorafenib produced better outcomes among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) than sorafenib alone, according to new findings.

The use of SBRT in this setting improved both overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). There was no increase in adverse events with the addition of SBRT, and results trended toward a quality-of-life benefit at 6 months.

“This adds to the body of evidence for the role of external-beam radiation, bringing SBRT to the armamentarium of treatment options for patients – particularly those with locally advanced HCC and macrovascular invasion, especially if they are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs],” said lead study author Laura A. Dawson, MD, a clinician scientist at the Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto.

Dr. Dawson presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Approached for an outside comment, Mary Feng, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the University of California, San Francisco, said, “This study is really groundbreaking.”

She added that the investigators should be congratulated for executing this ambitious study with worldwide enrollment for a serious disease.

“There are very few studies demonstrating an overall survival benefit from radiation or any local control modality,” she told this news organization. She suggested that the survival benefit seen in this trial was “likely due to the high percentage of patients (74%) with macrovascular invasion, who stand to benefit the most from treatment.

“This study has established the standard of adding SBRT to patients who are treated with TKIs and raises the question of whether adding SBRT to immunotherapy would also result in a survival benefit. This next question must also be tested in a prospective clinical trial,” she said.
 

Study details

At the study’s inception, sorafenib was the standard of care for patients who were unable to undergo surgery, ablation, and/or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Dr. Dawson explained that sorafenib had been shown to improve median overall survival, although there was less benefit if macrovascular invasion was present.

“Integrating radiation strategies in HCC management has been a key question over the past few decades,” she said.

In the current study, Dr. Dawson and colleagues added SBRT to sorafenib. The cohort included 177 patients with new or recurrent HCC who were not candidates for surgery, ablation, or TACE. They were randomly assigned to receive either sorafenib 400 mg twice daily or to SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in five fractions) followed by sorafenib 200 mg twice daily; the dosage was then increased to 400 mg twice daily after 28 days.
 

SBRT improves outcomes

The original plan was to enroll 292 participants, but accrual closed early when the standard of care for systemic treatment of HCC changed following the results of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial, which showed the superiority of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as frontline therapy for locally advanced or metastatic HCC. The closure of accrual was agreed upon by the investigators and the data safety monitoring committee, and their statistical analysis plan was revised accordingly. The study became time driven rather than event driven, she noted. This resulted in a decrease from 80% power to 65% power.

The median age of participants was 66 years (range, 27-84 years); 41% had hepatitis C, and 19% had hepatitis B or B/C. Additionally, 82% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease, and 74% had macrovascular invasion.

The median follow-up was 13.2 months overall and 33.7 months for living patients.

Median overall survival improved from 12.3 months with sorafenib alone to 15.8 months with the addition of SBRT to the regimen (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77; one-sided P = .0554). A prespecified multivariable analysis showed that the combination therapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival after adjustment for confounders (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

Similarly, median PFS also improved from 5.5 months with sorafenib alone to 9.2 months with SBRT and sorafenib (HR = 0.55; two-sided P = .0001).

With regard to safety, gastrointestinal bleeds occurred in 4% of patients in the combination arm, vs. 6% of those in the monotherapy arm. Overall, rates of treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events did not significantly differ between study arms (42% vs. 47%; P = .52). There were three grade 5 events; two in the sorafenib-only group and one in the SBRT/sorafenib group.

The researchers also evaluated quality of life (QoL). “Our hypothesis was that patients treated with SBRT and sorafenib would have improved quality of life 6 months after the start of treatment compared to sorafenib alone,” said Dr. Dawson.

About half (47%) of participants agreed to fill out QoL assessments, but baseline and 6-month data were available for only about 21% of participants. Although the numbers were considered too small to analyze statistically, substantial improvement was seen in the group that received combination therapy. A total of 10% of patients who received sorafenib reported improvement on the FACT-Hep score, vs. 35% of patients who received SBRT/sorafenib.

“As compared to sorafenib, SBRT improved overall survival and progression-free survival, with no observed increase in adverse events in patients with advanced HCC,” concluded Dr. Dawson.
 

Where does radiation fit?

Invited discussant Laura Goff, MD, associate professor of medicine, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., reiterated that SBRT given prior to sorafenib improved outcomes compared to sorafenib alone, and while not definitive, Quality and Outcomes Framework scores appeared to improve at 6 months for the combination arm. “This reassures our concerns about toxicity,” she said.

Dr. Goff pointed out that since the study closed early, owing to changes in standard of care for HCC, the question arises – where does radiation fit in the array of options now available for HCC?

“For one, sorafenib plus SBRT represents an intriguing first-line option for patients who cannot be treated with immunotherapy, such as those who experience a posttransplant recurrence,” Dr. Goff said. “There is also renewed interest in radiation therapy in liver-dominant HCC, and there is active investigation ongoing for a variety of combinations.”

Dr. Dawson reported relationships with Merck and Raysearch. Dr. Goff reported relationships with Agios, ASLAN, AstraZeneca, Basilea, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Merck, and QED Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with refractory advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGOC) have a poor prognosis, with limited options following failure of second-line therapy. New data showing improved survival suggest that regorafenib (Stivarga) may offer a new treatment option in these patients.

“Regorafenib significantly improves survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory AGOC, delaying deterioration in global quality of life,” said lead author Nick Pavlakis, PhD, MBBS, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia. “There were also no new toxicity signals.”

He emphasized that benefit was consistent in all preplanned subgroups. “This offers a new treatment option in this setting,” Dr. Pavlakis said.

He presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting kinases involved in angiogenesis (VEGFR1-3, TIE-2), tumor microenvironment (PDGFR-beta, FGFR), and oncogenesis (RAF, RET, and KIT). It is already approved for several indications including metastatic colorectal cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and hepatocellular carcinoma. 

AGOC could be a new indication for the drug. Use in this patient population was explored in an earlier trial, Dr. Pavlakis commented.

“We previously demonstrated the regorafenib prolonged progression-free survival in the INTEGRATE phase 2 trial,” he said. “Based on those results, we undertook the phase 3 INTEGRATE II study. The goal was to examine if regorafenib improves overall survival after failure of at least two lines of treatment.”

However, Dr. Pavlakis noted that during the conduct of this study, there was a change of practice in gastric cancer. “There was an evolution of new evidence in support of additional chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, and very interesting data on the combination of nivolumab and regorafenib from a study being conducted in Japan. So we amended the protocol and evolved the INTEGRATE II to INTEGRATE IIa, to continue evaluating regorafenib versus placebo, and then to evolve to the INTEGRATE IIb study to evaluate regorafenib plus nivolumab versus chemotherapy,” he explained.

The results he presented at the meeting came from the phase 3 INTEGRATE II part of this trial. The other part of the trial, INTEGRATE IIb, is still accruing.

A total of 251 patients were enrolled from five countries and stratified by tumor location, geographic location (Asia vs. “rest of the world”), and prior treatment with VEGF inhibitors.

The cohort was randomly assigned to receive 160 mg regorafenib and best supportive care or placebo plus BSC.

After 238 events, the overall survival hazard ratio was 0.68. “The survival benefit of regorafenib was best observed in the 12-month survival of 19% versus 6%,” said Pavlakis.

The median overall survival for regorafenib versus placebo was 4.5 versus 4.0 months (HR, 0.70; P = .011).

After preplanned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions (Asia vs. non-Asia) or other prespecified subgroups.

In the pooled analysis, which included study populations from both the INTEGRATE and INTEGRATE IIa populations, the median overall survival was 5.0 versus 4.1 (HR, 0.70; P = .001).  

Regorafenib also improved progression-free survival (median PFS, 1.8 vs. 1.6 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001) and it delayed deterioration in global quality of life as compared with placebo (P = .0043).

Toxicity was similar to that previously reported in other studies, and adverse events were mostly grade 1 and 2.
 

A building block?

In a comment, Pamela Kunz, MD, director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that she would consider the results with regorafenib in this setting as statistically significant, but with questionable clinical significance.

“The median overall survival difference 0.5 months or about 2 weeks is very modest, especially when taking into consideration the side effect profile,” she said. “I think that regorafenib as a building block for the additional phase 3 study is more interesting.”

“There is data that suggests synergy between VEGF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, so I am eager to see the results of INEGRATE IIb [exploring regorafenib use with nivolumab],” Dr. Kunz added.

The study is sponsored by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Dr. Pavlakis reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Ipsen, Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications), Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with refractory advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGOC) have a poor prognosis, with limited options following failure of second-line therapy. New data showing improved survival suggest that regorafenib (Stivarga) may offer a new treatment option in these patients.

“Regorafenib significantly improves survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory AGOC, delaying deterioration in global quality of life,” said lead author Nick Pavlakis, PhD, MBBS, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia. “There were also no new toxicity signals.”

He emphasized that benefit was consistent in all preplanned subgroups. “This offers a new treatment option in this setting,” Dr. Pavlakis said.

He presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting kinases involved in angiogenesis (VEGFR1-3, TIE-2), tumor microenvironment (PDGFR-beta, FGFR), and oncogenesis (RAF, RET, and KIT). It is already approved for several indications including metastatic colorectal cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and hepatocellular carcinoma. 

AGOC could be a new indication for the drug. Use in this patient population was explored in an earlier trial, Dr. Pavlakis commented.

“We previously demonstrated the regorafenib prolonged progression-free survival in the INTEGRATE phase 2 trial,” he said. “Based on those results, we undertook the phase 3 INTEGRATE II study. The goal was to examine if regorafenib improves overall survival after failure of at least two lines of treatment.”

However, Dr. Pavlakis noted that during the conduct of this study, there was a change of practice in gastric cancer. “There was an evolution of new evidence in support of additional chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, and very interesting data on the combination of nivolumab and regorafenib from a study being conducted in Japan. So we amended the protocol and evolved the INTEGRATE II to INTEGRATE IIa, to continue evaluating regorafenib versus placebo, and then to evolve to the INTEGRATE IIb study to evaluate regorafenib plus nivolumab versus chemotherapy,” he explained.

The results he presented at the meeting came from the phase 3 INTEGRATE II part of this trial. The other part of the trial, INTEGRATE IIb, is still accruing.

A total of 251 patients were enrolled from five countries and stratified by tumor location, geographic location (Asia vs. “rest of the world”), and prior treatment with VEGF inhibitors.

The cohort was randomly assigned to receive 160 mg regorafenib and best supportive care or placebo plus BSC.

After 238 events, the overall survival hazard ratio was 0.68. “The survival benefit of regorafenib was best observed in the 12-month survival of 19% versus 6%,” said Pavlakis.

The median overall survival for regorafenib versus placebo was 4.5 versus 4.0 months (HR, 0.70; P = .011).

After preplanned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions (Asia vs. non-Asia) or other prespecified subgroups.

In the pooled analysis, which included study populations from both the INTEGRATE and INTEGRATE IIa populations, the median overall survival was 5.0 versus 4.1 (HR, 0.70; P = .001).  

Regorafenib also improved progression-free survival (median PFS, 1.8 vs. 1.6 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001) and it delayed deterioration in global quality of life as compared with placebo (P = .0043).

Toxicity was similar to that previously reported in other studies, and adverse events were mostly grade 1 and 2.
 

A building block?

In a comment, Pamela Kunz, MD, director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that she would consider the results with regorafenib in this setting as statistically significant, but with questionable clinical significance.

“The median overall survival difference 0.5 months or about 2 weeks is very modest, especially when taking into consideration the side effect profile,” she said. “I think that regorafenib as a building block for the additional phase 3 study is more interesting.”

“There is data that suggests synergy between VEGF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, so I am eager to see the results of INEGRATE IIb [exploring regorafenib use with nivolumab],” Dr. Kunz added.

The study is sponsored by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Dr. Pavlakis reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Ipsen, Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications), Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Patients with refractory advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGOC) have a poor prognosis, with limited options following failure of second-line therapy. New data showing improved survival suggest that regorafenib (Stivarga) may offer a new treatment option in these patients.

“Regorafenib significantly improves survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory AGOC, delaying deterioration in global quality of life,” said lead author Nick Pavlakis, PhD, MBBS, Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, Australia. “There were also no new toxicity signals.”

He emphasized that benefit was consistent in all preplanned subgroups. “This offers a new treatment option in this setting,” Dr. Pavlakis said.

He presented the findings at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor targeting kinases involved in angiogenesis (VEGFR1-3, TIE-2), tumor microenvironment (PDGFR-beta, FGFR), and oncogenesis (RAF, RET, and KIT). It is already approved for several indications including metastatic colorectal cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and hepatocellular carcinoma. 

AGOC could be a new indication for the drug. Use in this patient population was explored in an earlier trial, Dr. Pavlakis commented.

“We previously demonstrated the regorafenib prolonged progression-free survival in the INTEGRATE phase 2 trial,” he said. “Based on those results, we undertook the phase 3 INTEGRATE II study. The goal was to examine if regorafenib improves overall survival after failure of at least two lines of treatment.”

However, Dr. Pavlakis noted that during the conduct of this study, there was a change of practice in gastric cancer. “There was an evolution of new evidence in support of additional chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, and very interesting data on the combination of nivolumab and regorafenib from a study being conducted in Japan. So we amended the protocol and evolved the INTEGRATE II to INTEGRATE IIa, to continue evaluating regorafenib versus placebo, and then to evolve to the INTEGRATE IIb study to evaluate regorafenib plus nivolumab versus chemotherapy,” he explained.

The results he presented at the meeting came from the phase 3 INTEGRATE II part of this trial. The other part of the trial, INTEGRATE IIb, is still accruing.

A total of 251 patients were enrolled from five countries and stratified by tumor location, geographic location (Asia vs. “rest of the world”), and prior treatment with VEGF inhibitors.

The cohort was randomly assigned to receive 160 mg regorafenib and best supportive care or placebo plus BSC.

After 238 events, the overall survival hazard ratio was 0.68. “The survival benefit of regorafenib was best observed in the 12-month survival of 19% versus 6%,” said Pavlakis.

The median overall survival for regorafenib versus placebo was 4.5 versus 4.0 months (HR, 0.70; P = .011).

After preplanned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions (Asia vs. non-Asia) or other prespecified subgroups.

In the pooled analysis, which included study populations from both the INTEGRATE and INTEGRATE IIa populations, the median overall survival was 5.0 versus 4.1 (HR, 0.70; P = .001).  

Regorafenib also improved progression-free survival (median PFS, 1.8 vs. 1.6 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001) and it delayed deterioration in global quality of life as compared with placebo (P = .0043).

Toxicity was similar to that previously reported in other studies, and adverse events were mostly grade 1 and 2.
 

A building block?

In a comment, Pamela Kunz, MD, director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., said that she would consider the results with regorafenib in this setting as statistically significant, but with questionable clinical significance.

“The median overall survival difference 0.5 months or about 2 weeks is very modest, especially when taking into consideration the side effect profile,” she said. “I think that regorafenib as a building block for the additional phase 3 study is more interesting.”

“There is data that suggests synergy between VEGF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, so I am eager to see the results of INEGRATE IIb [exploring regorafenib use with nivolumab],” Dr. Kunz added.

The study is sponsored by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Dr. Pavlakis reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Kunz reported relationships with Ipsen, Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications), Genentech/Roche, Amgen, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Natera, HUTCHMED, and Isotope Technologies Munich.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma experience pain, but when it’s severe, how best to control the pain is debatable. A number of studies, including one recently presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, shows that low-dose radiotherapy can improve pain, and in this case, even improve survival.

The study, conducted by Laura Dawson, MD, a radiation oncologist with the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, was conducted in 66 patients with painful hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. They were randomized to receive either palliative radiotherapy (single fraction 8 gray) or standard pain control. Sixty-three percent of patients treated with radiotherapy reported significant improvements in mild pain compared with 28% of patients who received standard pain control (P = .03).

Currently, palliative radiotherapy to control pain in late stage cancer may be an option for some patients with other types of advanced cancer, but in liver cancer, there is little data to support its routine use in patients with terminal hepatocellular carcinoma. “Several prior studies have shown radiation therapy may be delivered safely and that it may help patients with hepatic cancer pain,” Dr. Dawson said. But the previous studies have mostly been single-arm, she said, and many lacked patient-reported outcomes.

In liver cancer, existing therapies are largely inadequate for pain relief, especially for moderate to severe pain. Systemic therapy isn’t effective for rapid pain relief. And, for a subset of patients with end-stage liver cancer, standard pain control with acetaminophen, steroids, and narcotics either is not effective or cannot be tolerated because of underlying cirrhosis or poor liver function due to the cancer.

Although not clinically significant, palliative radiotherapy improved 3-month survival (51%) compared with patients who received best supportive care (33%, P = .07). “Interestingly, there was a trend for improved survival in those patients who received radiation with a 3-month survival of 51% versus 33% of those who received best supportive care. Clearly, the study was not powered for this, but it is very intriguing and hopefully sets the stage for future clinical trials.”

In this study, “simple radiotherapy was used and could consist of two beams, opposed or oblique parallel pair, or simple intensity modulated radiation. This is available with any medical linear accelerator or any cancer center,” Dr. Dawson said. “A single dose of radiation therapy with an antiemetic is a low-cost simple palliative intervention for patients with analgesia-refractory hepatic pain from cancer.”
 

New data reported at ASCO GI

The Dawson et al. study included 66 patients with liver cancer who had pain scores of at least 4. They had pain that was specific to the liver and they were unsuitable for or refractory to other therapies with no other planned therapies, such as immunotherapy. Their pain was refractory to standard treatments. Of the patients, 43 had liver metastasis from cancers that originated in the colon (12), breast (5), pancreas (4), lung (3), hepatocellular carcinoma (23), or other sites (19).

At 59%, more than half of patients had ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, suggesting the cancer had progressed to the extent that they were confined to a bed or chair for more than half of their waking hours (level 3) or they were capable of self-care but unable to work (level 2). Of the 66 patients, 42 patients completed 1-month assessments and of these, 67% of 24 patients receiving palliative radiotherapy (21% had no increase in opioids) and 22% of 18 patients receiving best supportive care (with no increase in opioids) reported improvements in their worst pain levels.

The primary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a clinically important improvement in pain 1 month after therapy – was met. “There was a significant improvement in all pain endpoints from baseline to one month, with more patients who received radiotherapy reporting clinically important reduction of pain (a reduction by 2 or more on the 0 to 10 scale). The primary endpoint was pain – worst pain, and 67% of those patients who had radiation reported an improvement in their pain at worst in the past 24 hours versus 22% treated with best supportive care, with a P value .004,” Dr. Dawson said.

Adverse events of at least grade 2 or higher occurred 30 days after radiotherapy, affecting 58% of patients compared with 33% of patients who did not receive the treatment. Adverse events at grade 3 or higher were uncommon.

Dr. Dawson reports institutional research funding from Merck.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

Most patients with end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma experience pain, but when it’s severe, how best to control the pain is debatable. A number of studies, including one recently presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, shows that low-dose radiotherapy can improve pain, and in this case, even improve survival.

The study, conducted by Laura Dawson, MD, a radiation oncologist with the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, was conducted in 66 patients with painful hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. They were randomized to receive either palliative radiotherapy (single fraction 8 gray) or standard pain control. Sixty-three percent of patients treated with radiotherapy reported significant improvements in mild pain compared with 28% of patients who received standard pain control (P = .03).

Currently, palliative radiotherapy to control pain in late stage cancer may be an option for some patients with other types of advanced cancer, but in liver cancer, there is little data to support its routine use in patients with terminal hepatocellular carcinoma. “Several prior studies have shown radiation therapy may be delivered safely and that it may help patients with hepatic cancer pain,” Dr. Dawson said. But the previous studies have mostly been single-arm, she said, and many lacked patient-reported outcomes.

In liver cancer, existing therapies are largely inadequate for pain relief, especially for moderate to severe pain. Systemic therapy isn’t effective for rapid pain relief. And, for a subset of patients with end-stage liver cancer, standard pain control with acetaminophen, steroids, and narcotics either is not effective or cannot be tolerated because of underlying cirrhosis or poor liver function due to the cancer.

Although not clinically significant, palliative radiotherapy improved 3-month survival (51%) compared with patients who received best supportive care (33%, P = .07). “Interestingly, there was a trend for improved survival in those patients who received radiation with a 3-month survival of 51% versus 33% of those who received best supportive care. Clearly, the study was not powered for this, but it is very intriguing and hopefully sets the stage for future clinical trials.”

In this study, “simple radiotherapy was used and could consist of two beams, opposed or oblique parallel pair, or simple intensity modulated radiation. This is available with any medical linear accelerator or any cancer center,” Dr. Dawson said. “A single dose of radiation therapy with an antiemetic is a low-cost simple palliative intervention for patients with analgesia-refractory hepatic pain from cancer.”
 

New data reported at ASCO GI

The Dawson et al. study included 66 patients with liver cancer who had pain scores of at least 4. They had pain that was specific to the liver and they were unsuitable for or refractory to other therapies with no other planned therapies, such as immunotherapy. Their pain was refractory to standard treatments. Of the patients, 43 had liver metastasis from cancers that originated in the colon (12), breast (5), pancreas (4), lung (3), hepatocellular carcinoma (23), or other sites (19).

At 59%, more than half of patients had ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, suggesting the cancer had progressed to the extent that they were confined to a bed or chair for more than half of their waking hours (level 3) or they were capable of self-care but unable to work (level 2). Of the 66 patients, 42 patients completed 1-month assessments and of these, 67% of 24 patients receiving palliative radiotherapy (21% had no increase in opioids) and 22% of 18 patients receiving best supportive care (with no increase in opioids) reported improvements in their worst pain levels.

The primary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a clinically important improvement in pain 1 month after therapy – was met. “There was a significant improvement in all pain endpoints from baseline to one month, with more patients who received radiotherapy reporting clinically important reduction of pain (a reduction by 2 or more on the 0 to 10 scale). The primary endpoint was pain – worst pain, and 67% of those patients who had radiation reported an improvement in their pain at worst in the past 24 hours versus 22% treated with best supportive care, with a P value .004,” Dr. Dawson said.

Adverse events of at least grade 2 or higher occurred 30 days after radiotherapy, affecting 58% of patients compared with 33% of patients who did not receive the treatment. Adverse events at grade 3 or higher were uncommon.

Dr. Dawson reports institutional research funding from Merck.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

Most patients with end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma experience pain, but when it’s severe, how best to control the pain is debatable. A number of studies, including one recently presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, shows that low-dose radiotherapy can improve pain, and in this case, even improve survival.

The study, conducted by Laura Dawson, MD, a radiation oncologist with the Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, was conducted in 66 patients with painful hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases. They were randomized to receive either palliative radiotherapy (single fraction 8 gray) or standard pain control. Sixty-three percent of patients treated with radiotherapy reported significant improvements in mild pain compared with 28% of patients who received standard pain control (P = .03).

Currently, palliative radiotherapy to control pain in late stage cancer may be an option for some patients with other types of advanced cancer, but in liver cancer, there is little data to support its routine use in patients with terminal hepatocellular carcinoma. “Several prior studies have shown radiation therapy may be delivered safely and that it may help patients with hepatic cancer pain,” Dr. Dawson said. But the previous studies have mostly been single-arm, she said, and many lacked patient-reported outcomes.

In liver cancer, existing therapies are largely inadequate for pain relief, especially for moderate to severe pain. Systemic therapy isn’t effective for rapid pain relief. And, for a subset of patients with end-stage liver cancer, standard pain control with acetaminophen, steroids, and narcotics either is not effective or cannot be tolerated because of underlying cirrhosis or poor liver function due to the cancer.

Although not clinically significant, palliative radiotherapy improved 3-month survival (51%) compared with patients who received best supportive care (33%, P = .07). “Interestingly, there was a trend for improved survival in those patients who received radiation with a 3-month survival of 51% versus 33% of those who received best supportive care. Clearly, the study was not powered for this, but it is very intriguing and hopefully sets the stage for future clinical trials.”

In this study, “simple radiotherapy was used and could consist of two beams, opposed or oblique parallel pair, or simple intensity modulated radiation. This is available with any medical linear accelerator or any cancer center,” Dr. Dawson said. “A single dose of radiation therapy with an antiemetic is a low-cost simple palliative intervention for patients with analgesia-refractory hepatic pain from cancer.”
 

New data reported at ASCO GI

The Dawson et al. study included 66 patients with liver cancer who had pain scores of at least 4. They had pain that was specific to the liver and they were unsuitable for or refractory to other therapies with no other planned therapies, such as immunotherapy. Their pain was refractory to standard treatments. Of the patients, 43 had liver metastasis from cancers that originated in the colon (12), breast (5), pancreas (4), lung (3), hepatocellular carcinoma (23), or other sites (19).

At 59%, more than half of patients had ECOG performance status of 2 or 3, suggesting the cancer had progressed to the extent that they were confined to a bed or chair for more than half of their waking hours (level 3) or they were capable of self-care but unable to work (level 2). Of the 66 patients, 42 patients completed 1-month assessments and of these, 67% of 24 patients receiving palliative radiotherapy (21% had no increase in opioids) and 22% of 18 patients receiving best supportive care (with no increase in opioids) reported improvements in their worst pain levels.

The primary endpoint – the proportion of patients with a clinically important improvement in pain 1 month after therapy – was met. “There was a significant improvement in all pain endpoints from baseline to one month, with more patients who received radiotherapy reporting clinically important reduction of pain (a reduction by 2 or more on the 0 to 10 scale). The primary endpoint was pain – worst pain, and 67% of those patients who had radiation reported an improvement in their pain at worst in the past 24 hours versus 22% treated with best supportive care, with a P value .004,” Dr. Dawson said.

Adverse events of at least grade 2 or higher occurred 30 days after radiotherapy, affecting 58% of patients compared with 33% of patients who did not receive the treatment. Adverse events at grade 3 or higher were uncommon.

Dr. Dawson reports institutional research funding from Merck.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – An experimental monoclonal antibody combined with chemotherapy could offer a new standard of care for patients with claudin-18.2+ (CLDN18.2+) / HER2− advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma, say researchers in reporting a phase 3 trial.

Used in the frontline setting, zolbetuximab (under development by Ganymed Pharmaceuticals AG) combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with what was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The chemotherapy used was the mFOLFOX6 regimen, comprising folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU), and oxaliplatin (OX).

“Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 is a new potential standard treatment for these patients,” said lead study author Kohei Shitara, MD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East Kashiwa City, Chiba, Japan.

This is one of the longest median overall survival outcomes for patients with locally advanced mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in phase 3 trials, Dr. Shitera emphasized. “Survival benefits were observed across most subgroups,” he said. “Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 demonstrated a tolerable and manageable safety profile, and it was consistent with prior studies of the combination.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Zolbetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the cell surface molecule CLDN18.2, which is expressed in normal gastric mucosa cells and is retained in mG/GEJ tumor cells. It represents a unique target in that it is restricted to differentiated stomach cells only, and LDN18.2 is absent from all other healthy tissues.

However, it is upregulated in various cancers, including about 80% of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, 60% of pancreatic tumors, and biliary, ovarian, and lung cancers.

In a discussion of the paper, David H. Wang, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of internal medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that “zolbetuximab is the first molecularly targeted therapy, exclusive of immune checkpoint inhibitors, to demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit in first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer since trastuzumab.”

But he asked why the control arm did so well.

One reason may be that claudin 18 positivity may be associated with a better prognosis for patients with diffuse gastric cancer, he explained. “It may also be due to more limited or earlier disease – the majority had limited metastases, and one-third had a prior gastrectomy.”

Overall, Dr. Wang believes that these results validate claudin 18 as a new predictive biomarker for advanced gastric cancer, although he noted that widespread implementation for this indication may be limited, as the assay to determine claudin 18 levels is not widely available. “Standardization is also needed for interpretation,” he added.
 

Study details

First-line therapy for HER2− mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma generally consists of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but among patients with advanced disease, the prognosis continues to be poor, and therapeutic options are limited.

Zolbetuximab improved survival in the phase 2 FAST trial, which was conducted in a similar patient cohort. Median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received zolbetuximab in comparison with those who did not (13.2 vs. 8.4 months). For patients with the highest levels of CLDN18.2, median overall survival was even longer (16.7 vs. 9.0 months).

“There is a need for better therapies, as chemotherapy is still the primary treatment,” said Dr. Shitera. “Some patients may benefit from targeted therapies, but clearly, better therapies are needed.”
 

Significantly improved survival

In the current phase 3 trial, dubbed SPOTLIGHT, Dr. Shitera and colleagues randomly assigned 565 patients to receive either zolbetuximab IV 800 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 1) followed by 600 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 22, and every 3 weeks in later cycles) plus mFOLFOX6 IV for four 42-day cycles or placebo plus mFOLFOX6.

All patients were treatment naive with CLDN18.2/HER2− locally advanced unresectable or metastatic mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Treatment continued until disease progression or discontinuation criteria were met.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was statistically significantly improved among patients who received combination therapy with zolbetuximab, compared with patients who received placebo (median 10.61 vs. 8.67 months; hazard ratio, 0.751; P = .0066).

“This was highly significant, and the study met its primary endpoint,” said Dr. Shitera. “The subgroup analysis shows that there was also consistent benefit in the prespecified subgroups.”

In similar fashion, overall survival was also significantly improved (median, 18.23 vs. 15.54 months; HR, 0.750; P = .0053).

However, the overall response rate was similar between groups (60.7% vs. 62.1%).

Toxicity was higher in the zolbetuximab group. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (82.4% vs. 60.8% in zolbetuximab vs. placebo arms), vomiting (67.4% vs. 35.6%), and decreased appetite (47.0% vs. 33.5%), although the incidence of serious events was similar between the groups (44.8% vs. 43.5%).

Most events occurred at first or second cycle and could be resolved, Dr. Shitera noted, and treatment-related events were consistent with those of previous studies.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Shitara has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – An experimental monoclonal antibody combined with chemotherapy could offer a new standard of care for patients with claudin-18.2+ (CLDN18.2+) / HER2− advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma, say researchers in reporting a phase 3 trial.

Used in the frontline setting, zolbetuximab (under development by Ganymed Pharmaceuticals AG) combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with what was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The chemotherapy used was the mFOLFOX6 regimen, comprising folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU), and oxaliplatin (OX).

“Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 is a new potential standard treatment for these patients,” said lead study author Kohei Shitara, MD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East Kashiwa City, Chiba, Japan.

This is one of the longest median overall survival outcomes for patients with locally advanced mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in phase 3 trials, Dr. Shitera emphasized. “Survival benefits were observed across most subgroups,” he said. “Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 demonstrated a tolerable and manageable safety profile, and it was consistent with prior studies of the combination.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Zolbetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the cell surface molecule CLDN18.2, which is expressed in normal gastric mucosa cells and is retained in mG/GEJ tumor cells. It represents a unique target in that it is restricted to differentiated stomach cells only, and LDN18.2 is absent from all other healthy tissues.

However, it is upregulated in various cancers, including about 80% of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, 60% of pancreatic tumors, and biliary, ovarian, and lung cancers.

In a discussion of the paper, David H. Wang, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of internal medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that “zolbetuximab is the first molecularly targeted therapy, exclusive of immune checkpoint inhibitors, to demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit in first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer since trastuzumab.”

But he asked why the control arm did so well.

One reason may be that claudin 18 positivity may be associated with a better prognosis for patients with diffuse gastric cancer, he explained. “It may also be due to more limited or earlier disease – the majority had limited metastases, and one-third had a prior gastrectomy.”

Overall, Dr. Wang believes that these results validate claudin 18 as a new predictive biomarker for advanced gastric cancer, although he noted that widespread implementation for this indication may be limited, as the assay to determine claudin 18 levels is not widely available. “Standardization is also needed for interpretation,” he added.
 

Study details

First-line therapy for HER2− mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma generally consists of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but among patients with advanced disease, the prognosis continues to be poor, and therapeutic options are limited.

Zolbetuximab improved survival in the phase 2 FAST trial, which was conducted in a similar patient cohort. Median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received zolbetuximab in comparison with those who did not (13.2 vs. 8.4 months). For patients with the highest levels of CLDN18.2, median overall survival was even longer (16.7 vs. 9.0 months).

“There is a need for better therapies, as chemotherapy is still the primary treatment,” said Dr. Shitera. “Some patients may benefit from targeted therapies, but clearly, better therapies are needed.”
 

Significantly improved survival

In the current phase 3 trial, dubbed SPOTLIGHT, Dr. Shitera and colleagues randomly assigned 565 patients to receive either zolbetuximab IV 800 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 1) followed by 600 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 22, and every 3 weeks in later cycles) plus mFOLFOX6 IV for four 42-day cycles or placebo plus mFOLFOX6.

All patients were treatment naive with CLDN18.2/HER2− locally advanced unresectable or metastatic mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Treatment continued until disease progression or discontinuation criteria were met.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was statistically significantly improved among patients who received combination therapy with zolbetuximab, compared with patients who received placebo (median 10.61 vs. 8.67 months; hazard ratio, 0.751; P = .0066).

“This was highly significant, and the study met its primary endpoint,” said Dr. Shitera. “The subgroup analysis shows that there was also consistent benefit in the prespecified subgroups.”

In similar fashion, overall survival was also significantly improved (median, 18.23 vs. 15.54 months; HR, 0.750; P = .0053).

However, the overall response rate was similar between groups (60.7% vs. 62.1%).

Toxicity was higher in the zolbetuximab group. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (82.4% vs. 60.8% in zolbetuximab vs. placebo arms), vomiting (67.4% vs. 35.6%), and decreased appetite (47.0% vs. 33.5%), although the incidence of serious events was similar between the groups (44.8% vs. 43.5%).

Most events occurred at first or second cycle and could be resolved, Dr. Shitera noted, and treatment-related events were consistent with those of previous studies.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Shitara has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – An experimental monoclonal antibody combined with chemotherapy could offer a new standard of care for patients with claudin-18.2+ (CLDN18.2+) / HER2− advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma, say researchers in reporting a phase 3 trial.

Used in the frontline setting, zolbetuximab (under development by Ganymed Pharmaceuticals AG) combined with chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with what was seen with chemotherapy alone.

The chemotherapy used was the mFOLFOX6 regimen, comprising folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5-FU), and oxaliplatin (OX).

“Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 is a new potential standard treatment for these patients,” said lead study author Kohei Shitara, MD, department of gastrointestinal oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East Kashiwa City, Chiba, Japan.

This is one of the longest median overall survival outcomes for patients with locally advanced mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in phase 3 trials, Dr. Shitera emphasized. “Survival benefits were observed across most subgroups,” he said. “Zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 demonstrated a tolerable and manageable safety profile, and it was consistent with prior studies of the combination.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

Zolbetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the cell surface molecule CLDN18.2, which is expressed in normal gastric mucosa cells and is retained in mG/GEJ tumor cells. It represents a unique target in that it is restricted to differentiated stomach cells only, and LDN18.2 is absent from all other healthy tissues.

However, it is upregulated in various cancers, including about 80% of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, 60% of pancreatic tumors, and biliary, ovarian, and lung cancers.

In a discussion of the paper, David H. Wang, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of internal medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that “zolbetuximab is the first molecularly targeted therapy, exclusive of immune checkpoint inhibitors, to demonstrate a statistically significant survival benefit in first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer since trastuzumab.”

But he asked why the control arm did so well.

One reason may be that claudin 18 positivity may be associated with a better prognosis for patients with diffuse gastric cancer, he explained. “It may also be due to more limited or earlier disease – the majority had limited metastases, and one-third had a prior gastrectomy.”

Overall, Dr. Wang believes that these results validate claudin 18 as a new predictive biomarker for advanced gastric cancer, although he noted that widespread implementation for this indication may be limited, as the assay to determine claudin 18 levels is not widely available. “Standardization is also needed for interpretation,” he added.
 

Study details

First-line therapy for HER2− mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma generally consists of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, but among patients with advanced disease, the prognosis continues to be poor, and therapeutic options are limited.

Zolbetuximab improved survival in the phase 2 FAST trial, which was conducted in a similar patient cohort. Median overall survival was significantly longer for patients who received zolbetuximab in comparison with those who did not (13.2 vs. 8.4 months). For patients with the highest levels of CLDN18.2, median overall survival was even longer (16.7 vs. 9.0 months).

“There is a need for better therapies, as chemotherapy is still the primary treatment,” said Dr. Shitera. “Some patients may benefit from targeted therapies, but clearly, better therapies are needed.”
 

Significantly improved survival

In the current phase 3 trial, dubbed SPOTLIGHT, Dr. Shitera and colleagues randomly assigned 565 patients to receive either zolbetuximab IV 800 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 1) followed by 600 mg/m² (cycle 1, day 22, and every 3 weeks in later cycles) plus mFOLFOX6 IV for four 42-day cycles or placebo plus mFOLFOX6.

All patients were treatment naive with CLDN18.2/HER2− locally advanced unresectable or metastatic mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Treatment continued until disease progression or discontinuation criteria were met.

The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was statistically significantly improved among patients who received combination therapy with zolbetuximab, compared with patients who received placebo (median 10.61 vs. 8.67 months; hazard ratio, 0.751; P = .0066).

“This was highly significant, and the study met its primary endpoint,” said Dr. Shitera. “The subgroup analysis shows that there was also consistent benefit in the prespecified subgroups.”

In similar fashion, overall survival was also significantly improved (median, 18.23 vs. 15.54 months; HR, 0.750; P = .0053).

However, the overall response rate was similar between groups (60.7% vs. 62.1%).

Toxicity was higher in the zolbetuximab group. The most common treatment-related adverse events were nausea (82.4% vs. 60.8% in zolbetuximab vs. placebo arms), vomiting (67.4% vs. 35.6%), and decreased appetite (47.0% vs. 33.5%), although the incidence of serious events was similar between the groups (44.8% vs. 43.5%).

Most events occurred at first or second cycle and could be resolved, Dr. Shitera noted, and treatment-related events were consistent with those of previous studies.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. Dr. Shitara has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the abstract.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.