Adagrasib, an irreversible, selective KRASG12C inhibitor, may be an effective treatment in KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer, particularly when combined with an anti-EGFR antibody. In this analysis of the KRYSTAL-1 trial, patients with previously treated KRASG12C-mutated unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer received adagrasib (600 mg twice daily) plus cetuximab. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Ninety-four patients received adagrasib plus cetuximab. With a median follow-up of 11.9 months, ORR was 34.0%, disease control rate was 85.1%, and median duration of response was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2–7.6). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.7–7.4) and median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.8–18.8). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in all patients; grade 3–4 in 27.7% and no grade 5. No TRAEs led to adagrasib discontinuation. Exploratory analyses suggest circulating tumor DNA may identify features of response and acquired resistance. Significance: Adagrasib plus cetuximab demonstrates promising clinical activity and tolerable safety in heavily pretreated patients with unresectable or metastatic KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer. These data support a potential new standard of care and highlight the significance of testing and identification of KRASG12C mutations in patients with colorectal cancer. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 897 See co-corresponding author Rona Yaeger discuss this research article, published simultaneously at the AACR Annual Meeting 2024: https://vimeo.com/932606282/f27a6e46f4

Colorectal cancer is one of the major causes of cancer-related death in the Western world. Patient survival is highly dependent on the tumor stage at the time of diagnosis. Reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy is still a major obstacle in effective treatment of advanced disease. Due to the fact that colorectal cancer is mostly asymptomatic until it progresses to advanced stages, the implementation of screening programs aimed at early detection is essential to reduce incidence and mortality rates. Current screening and diagnostic methods range from semi-invasive procedures such as colonoscopy to noninvasive stool-based tests. The combination of the absence of symptoms, the semi-invasive nature of currently used methods, and the suboptimal accuracy of fecal blood tests results in colorectal cancer diagnosis at advanced stages in a significant number of individuals. Alterations in gene expression leading to colorectal carcinogenesis are reflected in dysregulated levels of nucleic acids and proteins, which can be used for the development of novel, minimally invasive molecular biomarkers. The purpose of this review is to discuss the commercially available colorectal cancer molecular diagnostic methods as well as to highlight some of the new candidate predictive and prognostic molecular markers for tumor, stool, and blood samples.

Lung cancer screening via annual low-dose computed tomography has poor adoption. We conducted a prospective case–control study among 958 individuals eligible for lung cancer screening to develop a blood-based lung cancer detection test that when positive is followed by a low-dose computed tomography. Changes in genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation profiles (fragmentomes) in peripheral blood reflected genomic and chromatin characteristics of lung cancer. We applied machine learning to fragmentome features to identify individuals who were more or less likely to have lung cancer. We trained the classifier using 576 cases and controls from study samples and validated it in a held-out group of 382 cases and controls. The validation demonstrated high sensitivity for lung cancer and consistency across demographic groups and comorbid conditions. Applying test performance to the screening eligible population in a 5-year model with modest utilization assumptions suggested the potential to prevent thousands of lung cancer deaths. Significance: Lung cancer screening has poor adoption. Our study describes the development and validation of a novel blood-based lung cancer screening test utilizing a highly affordable, low-coverage genome-wide sequencing platform to analyze cell-free DNA fragmentation patterns. The test could improve lung cancer screening rates leading to substantial public health benefits. See related commentary by Haber and Skates, p. 2025

Latinos have lower rates for most common cancer sites and higher rates of some less common cancers (gallbladder, liver, gastric, and cervical) than other ethnic/racial groups. Latinos are a highly heterogeneous population with diverse national origins, unique genetic admixture patterns, and wide spectrum of socio-demographic characteristics. Across the major cancers (breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and liver) US-born Latinos have higher incidence and worse survival than foreign-born, and those with low-socioeconomic status have the lowest incidence. Puerto Rican and Cuban Latinos have higher incidence rates than Mexican Latinos. We have identified the following themes as understudied and critical to reduce the cancer burden among US Latinos: (1) etiological studies considering key sources of heterogeneity, (2) culturally sensitive cancer prevention strategies, (3) description of the molecular tumor landscape to guide treatments and improve outcomes, and (4) development of prediction models of disease risk and outcomes accounting for heterogeneity of Latinos.

Purpose: To assess whether MUC1 peptide vaccine produces an immune response and prevents subsequent colon adenoma formation. Patients and Methods: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in individuals age 40 to 70 with diagnosis of an advanced adenoma ≤1 year from randomization. Vaccine was administered at 0, 2, and 10 weeks with a booster injection at week 53. Adenoma recurrence was assessed ≥1 year from randomization. The primary endpoint was vaccine immunogenicity at 12 weeks defined by anti-MUC1 ratio ≥2.0. Results: Fifty-three participants received the MUC1 vaccine and 50 placebo. Thirteen of 52 (25%) MUC1 vaccine recipients had a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG (range, 2.9–17.3) at week 12 versus 0/50 placebo recipients (one-sided Fisher exact P < 0.0001). Of 13 responders at week 12, 11 (84.6%) responded to a booster injection at week 52 with a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG measured at week 55. Recurrent adenoma was observed in 31 of 47 (66.0%) in the placebo group versus 27 of 48 (56.3%) in the MUC1 group [adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60–1.14; P = 0.25]. Adenoma recurrence occurred in 3/11 (27.3%) immune responders at week 12 and week 55 (aRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15–1.11; P = 0.08 compared with placebo). There was no difference in serious adverse events. Conclusions: An immune response was observed only in vaccine recipients. Adenoma recurrence was not different than placebo, but a 38% absolute reduction in adenoma recurrence compared with placebo was observed in participants who had an immune response at week 12 and with the booster injection.