PURPOSE: Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates. CONCLUSION: 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, and postoperative chemotherapy.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. To assess long-term risk of local tumor regrowth, we report updated organ preservation rate and oncologic outcomes of the OPRA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02008656 ). Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients who achieved a complete or near-complete response after finishing treatment were offered watch-and-wait (WW). Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for those who achieved an incomplete response. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was TME-free survival. In total, 324 patients were randomly assigned (INCT-CRT, n = 158; CRT-CNCT, n = 166). Median follow-up was 5.1 years. The 5-year DFS rates were 71% (95% CI, 64 to 79) and 69% (95% CI, 62 to 77) for INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT, respectively ( P = .68). TME-free survival was 39% (95% CI, 32 to 48) in the INCT-CRT group and 54% (95% CI, 46 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group ( P = .012). Of 81 patients with regrowth, 94% occurred within 2 years and 99% occurred within 3 years. DFS was similar for patients who underwent TME after restaging (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]) and patients in WW who underwent TME after regrowth (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]; P = .94). Updated analysis continues to show long-term organ preservation in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy. In patients who enter WW, most cases of tumor regrowth occur in the first 2 years.

Pain is highly prevalent in patients with pancreas cancer and contributes to the morbidity of the disease. Pain may be due to pancreatic enzyme insufficiency, obstruction, and/or a direct mass effect on nerves in the celiac plexus. Proper supportive care to decrease pain is an important aspect of the overall management of these patients. There are limited data specific to the management of pain caused by pancreatic cancer. Here we review the literature and offer recommendations regarding multiple modalities available to treat pain in these patients. The dissemination and adoption of these best supportive care practices can improve quantity and quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. Implications for Practice: Pain management is important to improve the quality of life and survival of a patient with cancer. The pathophysiology of pain in pancreas cancer is complex and multifactorial. Despite tumor response to chemotherapy, a sizeable percentage of patients are at risk for ongoing cancer-related pain and its comorbid consequences. Accordingly, the management of pain in patients with pancreas cancer can be challenging and often requires a multifaceted approach.

Purpose: Duligotuzumab is a dual-action antibody directed against EGFR and HER3. Experimental Design: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with KRAS ex2 wild-type received duligotuzumab or cetuximab and FOLFIRI until progression or intolerable toxicity. Mandatory tumor samples underwent mutation and biomarker analysis. Efficacy analysis was conducted in patients with RAS exon 2/3 wild-type tumors. Results: Of 134 randomly assigned patients, 98 had RAS ex2/3 wild-type. Duligotuzumab provided no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) benefit compared with cetuximab, although there was a trend for a lower objective response rate (ORR) in the duligotuzumab arm. No relationship was seen between PFS or ORR and ERBB3, NRG1, or AREG expression. There were fewer skin rash events for duligotuzumab but more diarrhea. Although the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs was similar, the frequency of serious AEs was higher for duligotuzumab. Conclusions: Duligotuzumab plus FOLFIRI did not appear to improve the outcomes in patients with RAS exon 2/3 wild-type mCRC compared with cetuximab + FOLFIRI. Clin Cancer Res; 24(10); 2276–84. ©2018 AACR.

Purpose: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma upregulates CD73, potentially contributing to immune surveillance evasion. Combining oleclumab (CD73 inhibitor) and durvalumab with chemotherapy may identify an effective treatment option. Patients and Methods: We describe a multicenter phase Ib/II randomized clinical trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, untreated (cohort A) or previously received gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (cohort B; NCT03611556). During escalation, patients received oleclumab 1,500 or 3,000 mg, durvalumab 1,500 mg, and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP; cohort A; n = 14) or modified FOLFOX (cohort B; n = 11). During expansion, cohort A patients (n = 170) were randomized to GnP (arm A1), oleclumab [recommended phase II dose (RP2D)] with GnP (arm A2), or oleclumab (RP2D) with durvalumab plus GnP (arm A3). Primary objectives were safety (escalation) and objective response rate (expansion). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: During escalation, 1/11 patients from cohort B (oleclumab 3,000 mg) experienced two dose-limiting toxicities. Oleclumab’s RP2D was 3,000 mg. During expansion, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 67.7% (42/62) of patients in A1, 73.7% (28/38) in A2, and 77.1% (54/70) in A3. The objective response rate was 29.0%, 21.1%, and 32.9% in A1, A2, and A3, respectively (A1 vs. A3; P = 0.650). PFS [HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47, 1.11] and OS (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50–1.13) were similar for A3 versus A1. Patients with high CD73 expression had improved PFS and OS in A3 versus A1, although this should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Although the safety profile was acceptable, this study did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint.

Background: SEA-CD40 is an investigational, non-fucosylated, humanized monoclonal IgG₁ antibody that activates CD40, an immune-activating tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member. SEA-CD40 exhibits enhanced binding to activating FcγRIIIa, possibly enabling greater immune stimulation than other CD40 agonists. A first-in-human phase 1 trial was conducted to examine safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of SEA-CD40 monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphoma. Methods: SEA-CD40 was administered intravenously to patients with solid tumors or lymphoma in 21-day cycles with standard 3+3 dose escalation at 0.6, 3, 10, 30, 45, and 60 µg/kg. An intensified dosing regimen was also studied. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the safety and tolerability and identify the maximum tolerated dose of SEA-CD40. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the pharmacokinetic parameters, antitherapeutic antibodies, pharmacodynamic effects and biomarker response, and antitumor activity. Results: A total of 67 patients received SEA-CD40 including 56 patients with solid tumors and 11 patients with lymphoma. A manageable safety profile was observed, with predominant adverse events of infusion/hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) reported in 73% of patients. IHRs were primarily ≤grade 2 with an incidence associated with infusion rate. To mitigate IHRs, a standardized infusion approach was implemented with routine premedication and a slowed infusion rate. SEA-CD40 infusion resulted in potent immune activation, illustrated by dose dependent cytokine induction with associated activation and trafficking of innate and adaptive immune cells. Results suggested that doses of 10–30 µg/kg may result in optimal immune activation. SEA-CD40 monotherapy exhibited evidence of antitumor activity, with a partial response in a patient with basal cell carcinoma and a complete response in a patient with follicular lymphoma. Conclusions: SEA-CD40 was tolerable as monotherapy and induced potent dose dependent immune cell activation and trafficking consistent with immune activation. Evidence of monotherapy antitumor activity was observed in patients with solid tumors and lymphoma. Further evaluation of SEA-CD40 is warranted, potentially as a component of a combination regimen. Trial registration number: NCT02376699.