Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2 weeks for 12 cycles. RESULTS:= .029).The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/CONCLUSIONS:At 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

Background: Malnutrition incidence in cancer approaches 85%, disproportionately burdening those with lung, GI, and advanced stage cancers. Malnourished patients have impaired chemotherapy response, shorter survival, longer hospital stays, and decreased QoL. Home delivered meals are nutritional interventions that improve patient well- being, nutrition, and lower healthcare costs in the elderly but have not been studied as an intervention in cancer patients. HDMTM are nutritionist prescribed home delivered meals tailored to patient's symptoms, co-morbidities, and health needs. Preliminary data in 211 cancer patients showed with HDMTM 87% ate more than half of meals, 91% lived more independently, 89% ate more nutritiously, and 70% had less fatigue. HDMTM may be a strategy to reduce financial toxicity and healthcare utilization and improve QoL in cancer patients, but no primary data exists evaluating its efficacy.
Method(s): We sought to develop the first RCT evaluating patientcentered QoL improvement from nutritional intervention with HDMTM in those with metastatic lung and non-colorectal GI cancer. We established a partnership with God's Love We Deliver, a 501c3 non-profit specializing in HDMTM.
Result(s): We developed a protocol for a single-institution RCT of standard of care (SoC) versus SoC and HDMTM in metastatic lung and non-colorectal GI cancer patients with primary aim comparing QoL between arms at 12 weeks using the FACT-G questionnaire. Sample size is 180. Secondary aims assess HDMTM's impact on nutritional status, weight, mood, survival, food security, financial toxicity, healthcare utilization, and cost effectiveness. Eligible patients tolerate oral alimentation, have PS 0-3, and newly diagnosed (< 6 weeks) metastatic cancer. All patients have pre-randomization nutritional evaluation by an oncologic dietician.
Conclusion(s):We present the first PRMC reviewed and IRB approved RCT evaluating the efficacy of HDMTM in metastatic cancer patients with primary endpoint of patient reported QoL. Investigating HDMTM expands our knowledge of nutrition as an effective arm of palliative oncology

BACKGROUND:Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) is standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Pathologic complete response (pCR) has associated with improved survival. In modern phase III trials of NCRT, pCR ranges from 10% to 20%. Cetuximab improves response in KRAS (KRAS proto-oncogene) wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer. S0713 was designed to assess improvement in pCR with additional use of cetuximab with induction chemotherapy and NCRT for locally advanced, KRAS-wt rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patient eligibility: stage II to III biopsy-proven, KRAS-wt rectal adenocarcinoma; no bowel obstruction; adequate hematologic, hepatic and renal function; performance status of 0 to 2. Target enrollment: 80 patients. TREATMENT/METHODS:induction chemotherapy with wCAPOX (weekly capecitabine and oxaliplatin) and cetuximab followed by the same regimen concurrent with radiation (omitting day 15 oxaliplatin). If fewer than 7 pCRs were observed at planned interim analysis after 40 patients received all therapy, the study would close. Eighty eligible patients would provide 90% power given a true pCR rate > 35% at a significance of 0.04. The regimen would lack future interest if pCR probability was ≤ 20%. RESULTS:Between February 2009 and April 2013, 83 patients registered. Four were ineligible and 4 not treated, leaving 75 evaluable for clinical outcomes and toxicity, of whom 65 had surgery. Of 75 patients, 20 had pCR (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-38%); 19 (25%) had microscopic cancer; 36 (48%) had minor/no response (including 10 without surgery). Three-year disease-free survival was 73% (95% CI, 63%-83%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our trial did not meet the pCR target of 35%. Toxicity was generally acceptable. This regimen cannot be recommended outside the clinical trial setting.

BACKGROUND: Effective new agents for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with disease progression during standard therapy regimens are needed. We hypothesized that poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in patients with CRC and inefficient tumor DNA repair mechanisms, such as those with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H), would result in synthetic lethality. METHODS: This was an open-label phase II trial testing olaparib 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. for patients with disseminated, measurable CRC failing standard therapies with centrally confirmed tumor MSI status. The primary endpoint was the tumor response, assessed by RECIST, version 1.0. The secondary endpoints were safety/toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (20 microsatellite stable [MSS], 13 MSI-H) were enrolled. The median age for all patients was 57 years and for MSS and MSI-H patients was 51 and 61 years, respectively. All patients received at least one 28-day cycle of olaparib. No patient had a complete or partial response. Nausea (48%), fatigue (36%), and vomiting (33%) were the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events. The median PFS for all patients was 1.84 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the median PFS or OS for the MSS group compared with the MSI-H group. CONCLUSION: Single-agent olaparib delivered after failure of standard systemic therapy did not demonstrate activity for CRC patients, regardless of microsatellite status. Future trials, testing PARP inhibitors in patients with CRC should focus on the use of DNA-damaging chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, combined with PARP inhibitors, remembering the toxicity reported in the present study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Microsatellite instability (MSI-H) colorectal tumors exhibit hypermethylation in tumor mismatch repair genes, or have mutations in one or more of these genes resulting from a germ-line defect (Lynch syndrome). PARP inhibitors such as olaparib are most effective in tumors associated with inability to repair DNA damage. However, in this trial, single agent olaparib failed to elicit responses in patients with MSI-H colorectal tumors, and in those with microsatellite-stable tumors. It is possible that by adding olaparib to radiation therapy, or to a systemic DNA damaging agent, tumor lethality could be obtained. However, the price would be increased toxicity.

BACKGROUND: HIV status may affect outcomes after definitive chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Here, we report a large series in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era comparing outcomes between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with anal cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective chart review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an outpatient oncology clinic at large academic center. PATIENTS: A total of 107 patients were reviewed, 39 HIV positive and 68 HIV negative. All of the patients underwent definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on patient characteristics, treatment, toxicity, and outcomes were collected. Overall survival, colostomy-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 15 months. HIV-positive patients were younger (median, 52 vs 64 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly men (82% men vs 49% men; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in T, N, or stage groups. HIV-positive patients had a significantly longer duration from biopsy to start of chemoradiation (mean number of days, 82 vs 54; p = 0.042). There were no differences in rates of acute toxicities including diarrhea, fatigue, or dermatitis. HIV-positive patients had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (33% vs 15%; p = 0.024). The 3-year overall survival rate was 42% in HIV-positive and 76% in HIV-negative patients (p = 0.037; HR, 2.335 (95% CI, 1.032-5.283)). Three-year colostomy-free survival was 67% in HIV-positive and 88% in HIV-negative patients (p = 0.036; HR, 3.231 (95% CI, 1.014-10.299)). Differences in overall survival rates were not significant on multivariate analysis. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and small patient numbers. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, HIV-positive patients had significantly worse overall and colostomy-free survival rates than HIV-negative patients. However, differences in survival were not significant on multivariate analysis. Additional studies are necessary to establish the etiology of this difference.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and treatment characteristics and outcomes in locally advanced anal cancer, a potentially curable disease, in patients referred from a public or private hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 112 anal cancer patients from a public and a private hospital who received definitive chemoradiotherapy at the same cancer center between 2004 and 2013. Tumor stage, radiotherapy delay, radiotherapy duration, and unplanned treatment breaks >/=10 days were compared using t-test and chi(2) test. Overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and colostomy free survival (CFS) were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models for OS and DFS were developed. RESULTS: The follow-up was 14.9 months (range, 0.7-94.8 months). Public hospital patients presented with significantly higher clinical T stage (P<0.05) and clinical stage group (P<0.05), had significantly longer radiotherapy delays (P<0.05) and radiotherapy duration (P<0.05), and had more frequent radiation therapy (RT) breaks >/=10 days (P<0.05). Three-year OS showed a marked trend in favor of private hospital patients for 3-year OS (72.8% vs. 48.9%; P=0.171), 3-year DFS (66.3% vs. 42.7%, P=0.352), and 3-year CFS (86.4% vs. 68.9%, P=0.299). Referral hospital was not predictive of OS or DFS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Public hospital patients presented at later stage and experienced more delays in initiating and completing radiotherapy, which may contribute to the trend in poorer DFS and OS. These findings emphasize the need for identifying clinical and treatment factors that contribute to decreased survival in low socioeconomic status (SES) populations.

BACKGROUND: Small cell carcinoma of the rectum is a rare neoplasm with scant literature to guide treatment. We used the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to investigate the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of this cancer. METHODS: The SEER database (National Cancer Institute) was queried for locoregional cases of small cell rectal cancer. Years of diagnosis were limited to 1988-2010 (most recent available) to reduce variability in staging criteria or longitudinal changes in surgery and radiation techniques. Two month conditional survival was applied to minimize bias by excluding patients who did not survive long enough to receive cancer-directed therapy. Patient demographics between the RT and No_RT groups were compared using Pearson Chi-Square tests. Overall survival was compared between patients who received radiotherapy (RT, n = 43) and those who did not (No_RT, n = 28) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate important covariates. RESULTS: Median survival was significantly longer for patients who received radiation compared to those who were not treated with radiation; 26 mo vs. 8 mo, respectively (log-rank P = 0.009). We also noted a higher 1-year overall survival rate for those who received radiation (71.1% vs. 37.8%). Unadjusted hazard ratio for death (HR) was 0.495 with the use of radiation (95% CI 0.286-0.858). Among surgery, radiotherapy, sex and age at diagnosis, radiation therapy was the only significant factor for overall survival with a multivariate HR for death of 0.393 (95% CI 0.206-0.750, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Using SEER data, we have identified a significant survival advantage with the use of radiation therapy in the setting of rectal small cell carcinoma. Limitations of the SEER data apply to this study, particularly the lack of information on chemotherapy usage. Our findings strongly support the use of radiation therapy for patients with locoregional small cell rectal cancer.