Colorectal cancer remains a deadly disease with a projected 53 200 deaths in the US in 2020.¹ Widespread use of a multimodality treatment strategy involving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy and subsequent total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has improved survival. However, during the past decade, reduction in mortality has slowed for rectal cancer¹ owing to a high rate of distant metastasis (29%-39%).² Long-term analysis has shown that preoperative chemoradiotherapy results in persistent local control. Despite the adoption of adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy, patients are more than twice as likely to present with a distant recurrence rather than tumor regrowth at the primary site.^2,3 This situation emphasizes the urgency of devising upfront treatment strategies aimed at controlling obscure micrometastases.

Purpose: Immune checkpoint blockade has improved outcomes across tumor types; little is known about the efficacy of these agents in rare tumors. We report the results of the (nonpancreatic) neuroendocrine neoplasm cohort of SWOG S1609 dual anti–CTLA-4 and anti–PD-1 blockade in rare tumors (DART). Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase II clinical trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab across multiple rare tumor cohorts, with the (nonpancreatic) neuroendocrine cohort reported here. Response assessment by grade was not prespecified. The primary endpoint was overall response rate [ORR; RECIST v1.1; complete response (CR) and partial response (PR)]; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), stable disease >6 months, and toxicity. Results: Thirty-two eligible patients received therapy; 18 (56%) had high-grade disease. Most common primary sites were gastrointestinal (47%; N = 15) and lung (19%; N = 6). The overall ORR was 25% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13–64%; CR, 3%, N = 1; PR, 22%, N = 7]. Patients with high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma had an ORR of 44% (8/18 patients) versus 0% in low/intermediate grade tumors (0/14 patients; P = 0.004). The 6-month PFS was 31% (95% CI, 19%–52%); median OS was 11 months (95% CI, 6–∞). The most common toxicities were hypothyroidism (31%), fatigue (28%), and nausea (28%), with alanine aminotransferase elevation (9%) as the most common grade 3/4 immune-related adverse event, and no grade 5 events. Conclusions: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab demonstrated a 44% ORR in patients with nonpancreatic high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, with 0% ORR in low/intermediate grade disease.

Emerging data have suggested that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be a reliable biomarker for minimal residual disease (MRD) in CRC patients. Recent studies have shown that the ability to detect MRD using ctDNA assay after curative-intent surgery will change how to assess the recurrence risk and patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy. We performed a meta-analysis of post-operative ctDNA in stage I–IV (oligometastatic) CRC patients after curative-intent resection. We included 23 studies representing 3568 patients with evaluable ctDNA in CRC patient post-curative-intent surgery. Data were extracted from each study to perform a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4. software. Subsequent subgroup analysis was performed for stages I–III and oligometastatic stage IV CRC patients. Results showed that the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in post-surgical ctDNA-positive versus -negative patients in all stages was 7.27 (95% CI 5.49–9.62), p < 0.00001. Subgroup analysis revealed pooled HRs of 8.14 (95% CI 5.60–11.82) and 4.83 (95% CI 3.64–6.39) for stages I–III and IV CRC, respectively. The pooled HR for RFS in post-adjuvant chemotherapy ctDNA-positive versus -negative patients in all stages was 10.59 (95% CI 5.59–20.06), p < 0.00001. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has revolutionized non-invasive cancer diagnostics and monitoring, with two primary forms of analysis emerging: tumor-informed techniques and tumor-agnostic or tumor-naive techniques. Tumor-informed methods involve the initial identification of somatic mutations in tumor tissue, followed by the targeted sequencing of plasma DNA using a personalized assay. In contrast, the tumor-agnostic approach performs ctDNA analysis without prior knowledge of the patient’s tumor tissue molecular profile. This review highlights the distinctive features and implications of each approach. Tumor-informed techniques enable the precise monitoring of known tumor-specific mutations, leveraging the sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA detection. Conversely, the tumor-agnostic approach allows for a broader genetic and epigenetic analysis, potentially revealing novel alterations and enhancing our understanding of tumor heterogeneity. Both approaches have significant implications for personalized medicine and improved patient outcomes in the field of oncology. The subgroup analysis based on the ctDNA method showed pooled HRs of 8.66 (95% CI 6.38–11.75) and 3.76 (95% CI 2.58–5.48) for tumor-informed and tumor-agnostic, respectively. Our analysis emphasizes that post-operative ctDNA is a strong prognostic marker of RFS. Based on our results, ctDNA can be a significant and independent predictor of RFS. This real-time assessment of treatment benefits using ctDNA can be used as a surrogate endpoint for the development of novel drugs in the adjuvant setting.

Background: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have recently been approved for various malignancies based on the results of several clinical trials. However, these trials have mostly recruited patients with germline BRCA mutations, and it is unclear whether PARPi have similar efficacy in patients with somatic BRCA mutations. Our study aimed to determine the efficacy of PARPi in patients with somatic BRCA mutations.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis comparing overall response rate to PARPi in patients harboring somatic versus germline BRCA mutations. We looked at studies including somatic and germline mutations in BRCA patients that received PARPi.Results: After screening and removing duplicates, 18 studies met our criteria for including both somatic and germline BRCA mutations. Only 8 studies reported response rates for both somatic and germline BRCA mutations.In those studies, 24 out of 43 patients with somatic BRCA mutations (55.8%), and 69 out of 157 (43.9%) patients with germline BRCA patients had a response to therapy to PARPi. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.399).In all five studies that reported progression-free survival, there was no obvious difference in outcomes between somatic versus germline BRCA patients, however a precise statistical analysis could not be performed.Conclusion: Our meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature indicates similar response rates of PARPi therapy in patients with somatic and germline BRCA mutations. Investigation of use of PARPi therapy in a broader patient population, and the inclusion of somatic BRCA mutations in further clinical trials is paramount in improving therapeutic options for our patients.

PURPOSE: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC) remains a difficult-to-treat disease. Fluorouarcil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin (FFX) is a standard first-line therapy for mPC for patients with a favorable performance status and good organ function. In a phase I study, devimistat (CPI-613) in combination with modified FFX (mFFX) was deemed safe and exhibited promising efficacy in mPC. METHODS: The AVENGER 500 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504423 ) is a global, randomized phase III trial conducted at 74 sites across six countries to investigate the efficacy and safety of devimistat in combination with mFFX (experimental arm) compared with standard-dose FFX (control arm) in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment, administered in once-every-2-weeks cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, included intravenous devimistat at 500 mg/m ² total per day on days 1 and 3 in the experimental arm. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned (266 in the experimental arm and 262 in the control arm). The median OS was 11.10 months for devimistat plus mFFX versus 11.73 months for FFX (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18]; P = .655) and median progression-free survival was 7.8 months versus 8.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]; P = .94). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events with >10% frequency in the devimistat plus mFFX arm versus the FFX arm were neutropenia (29.0% v 34.5%), diarrhea (11.2% v 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% v 14.9%), anemia (13.9% v 13.6%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% v 13.6%), and fatigue (10.8% v 11.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Devimistat in combination with mFFX did not improve long- and short-term mPC patient outcomes compared with standard FFX. There were no new toxicity signals with the addition of devimistat.