Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Our preclinical work revealed tumour hypoxia induces homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), increasing sensitivity to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We aimed to induce tumour hypoxia with ramucirumab thereby sensitising tumours to olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:This multi-institution single-arm Phase 1/2 trial enrolled patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma refractory to ≥1 systemic treatment. In dose escalation, olaparib was evaluated at escalating dose levels with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of Phase 1 was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and in Phase 2 the primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS:Fifty-one patients received ramucirumab and olaparib. The RP2D was olaparib 300 mg twice daily with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg. In evaluable patients at the RP2D the ORR was 6/43 (14%) (95% CI 4.7-25.6). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.7-13.0). Non-statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed for patients with tumours with mutations in HRD genes. CONCLUSIONS:Olaparib and ramucirumab is well-tolerated with efficacy that exceeds historical controls with ramucirumab single agent for gastric cancer in a heavily pre-treated patient population.

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) are emerging as an important therapeutic target for patients with advanced, refractory cancers. Most selective FGFR inhibitors under investigation show reversible binding, and their activity is limited by acquired drug resistance. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical development of futibatinib, an irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor. Futibatinib stands out among FGFR inhibitors because of its covalent binding mechanism and low susceptibility to acquired resistance. Preclinical data indicated robust activity of futibatinib against acquired resistance mutations in the FGFR kinase domain. In early-phase studies, futibatinib showed activity in cholangiocarcinoma, and gastric, urothelial, breast, central nervous system, and head and neck cancers harboring various FGFR aberrations. Exploratory analyses indicated clinical benefit with futibatinib after prior FGFR inhibitor use. In a pivotal phase II trial, futibatinib demonstrated durable objective responses (42% objective response rate) and tolerability in previously treated patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. A manageable safety profile was observed across studies, and patient quality of life was maintained with futibatinib treatment in patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Hyperphosphatemia, the most common adverse event with futibatinib, was well managed and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. These data show clinically meaningful benefit with futibatinib in FGFR2-rearrangement-positive cholangiocarcinoma and provide support for further investigation of futibatinib across other indications. Future directions for this agent include elucidating mechanisms of resistance and exploration of combination therapy approaches.

PURPOSE:Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS:A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS:.049). CONCLUSION:Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

BACKGROUND:Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. METHODS:This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS:Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P < .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P < .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

Oncological outcomes are improving in gastrointestinal cancer with advancements in systemic therapies, and there is notable potential in combining immunotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) to allow for further improvements. Various preclinical and early phase II studies have shown promising synergy with immunotherapy and RT in gastrointestinal cancer. A few recent phase III studies have shown improved survival with the addition of immunotherapy to standard treatment for gastrointestinal cancer. The timing, duration, sequencing, and integration with other anti-cancer treatments are still areas of ongoing research. We have reviewed the published and ongoing studies of the combinations of immunotherapy and RT in gastrointestinal cancers.

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide and is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality. The paradigm has shifted to include a multimodality approach with surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy (including immunotherapy), and radiation therapy. Advances in radiotherapy through techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy have allowed for the more dose homogeneity and improved organ sparing. In addition, recent studies of targeted therapies and predictive approaches in patients with locally advanced disease provide clinicians with new approaches to modify multimodality treatment to improve clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Overexpression of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 (GRM1) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple cancers. Riluzole, an inhibitor of glutamate release, showed synergistic antitumor activity in combination with the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib in preclinical models. This phase I trial identified the toxicity profile, dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of riluzole combined with sorafenib in patients with advanced cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled utilizing a 3+3 dose-escalation design. Riluzole was given at 100 mg PO BID in combination with sorafenib, beginning at 200 mg PO daily and escalating in 200 mg increments per level in 28-day cycles. Restaging evaluations were performed every 2 cycles. RESULTS:35 patients were enrolled over 4 dose levels. The MTD was declared at dose level 3 (riluzole: 100 mg PO BID; sorafenib: 400 mg AM/200 mg PM). Pharmacokinetic analyses did not reveal definitive evidence of drug-drug interactions. Consistent decreases in phospho-forms of ERK and AKT in tumor tissue analyses with accompanying decrease in GRM1 expression and increase in pro-apoptotic BIM suggest target engagement by the combination. Best responses included a partial response in 1 (2.9%) patient with pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma with a KANK4-RAF1 fusion, and stable disease in 11 (36%) patients. CONCLUSION:Combination therapy with riluzole and sorafenib was safe and tolerable in patients with advanced solid tumors. The partial response in a patient with a RAF1 fusion suggests that further exploration in a genomically selected cohort may be warranted.