Search Results

NTRK gene fusions are found in <1% of all cancers but are uniformly present in mammary analog secretory carcinomas (MASC) of the salivary glands. Two selective histology-agnostic tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors are currently approved for malignancies with these oncogenic fusions. Resistance to TRK inhibition has been recognized, and the mediating mechanisms are presently being studied. This report describes a patient diagnosed with an MASC of the parotid gland who after undergoing multiple lines of treatment was found to have an ETV6-NTRK3 fusion and initiated TRK-targeted therapy using entrectinib. Upon disease progression, we performed tumor genetic sequencing that showed a secondary resistance mutation. The patient subsequently responded to selitrectinib, a next-generation TRK inhibitor.

Background: Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) and regorafenib are FDA-approved in the United States for treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FDA approvals of these agents were based on modest improvements in overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care + placebo in the RECOURSE and CORRECT trials, respectively. This study compared real-world clinical outcomes with the use of these agents. Methods: A nationwide deidentified electronic health record–derived database was reviewed for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2015 and 2020. Patients who received at least 2 lines of standard systemic therapy followed by treatment with either TAS-102 or regorafenib were included for analysis. Kaplan-Meier and propensity score–weighted proportional hazards models were used to compare survival outcomes between groups. Results: The records of 22,078 patients with mCRC were reviewed. Of these, 1,937 patients received at least 2 lines of standard therapy followed by regorafenib and/or TAS-102. Median OS for the TAS-102 alone or prior regorafenib group (n=1,016) was 6.66 months (95% CI, 6.16–7.18 months) compared with 6.30 months (95% CI, 5.80–6.79 months) for regorafenib alone or prior to TAS-102 (n=921; P=.36). A propensity score–weighted analysis controlling for potential confounders did not demonstrate a significant difference in survival between groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90–1.09; P=.82). A subgroup analysis did not identify any significant differences in outcomes regarding age, performance status, tumor sidedness, microsatellite instability status, or RAS/RAF status. Conclusions: This analysis of real-world data found that OS was similar for patients with mCRC who were treated with TAS-102 compared with regorafenib. Median OS with both agents in a real-world setting was similar to that shown in the clinical trials that led to their approvals. A prospective trial comparing TAS-102 and regorafenib would unlikely change current management of patients with refractory mCRC.

Background: Post hoc analysis of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial suggests that anti-EGFR therapy may be superior to bevacizumab when added to first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have left-sided primary tumors. We evaluated trends in use of anti-EGFR agents in patients with left-sided RAS/RAF wild-type (WT) mCRC and compared clinical outcomes among the most commonly used treatment strategies. Methods: A nationwide electronic health record (EHR)–derived deidentified database was reviewed for patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC. Treatment trends over time were assessed by fitting a linear model to the percentage of patients receiving anti-EGFR therapy. A propensity score weighted Cox model was used to compare overall survival (OS) stratified by first-line targeted therapy received. Results: A total of 1,607 patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC received standard first-line chemotherapy. Of these, 965 (60%) received bevacizumab and 186 (12%) received an anti-EGFR agent. The percentage of patients receiving an anti-EGFR increased from 9% in 2013 to 16% in 2018. Median OS for patients treated with chemotherapy alone was 27.3 months (95% CI, 24.8–32.3), 27.5 months with bevacizumab (95% CI, 25.8–28.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P=.33), and 42.9 months with an anti-EGFR agent (95% CI, 36.0 to not reached; HR, 0.52; P=.005). Conclusions: This analysis suggests that chemotherapy with bevacizumab remained the most widely used first-line treatment strategy for patients with left-sided RAS/RAF WT mCRC in the United States in 2018. Despite this preference, treatment with an anti-EGFR agent was associated with improved OS.

Background: BRAF mutations portend a poor prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Whether these patients may benefit from more aggressive frontline chemotherapy with a triplet regimen such as FOLFOXIRI remains unclear. We used real-world data from a cohort of patients in the United States to assess the BRAF testing rate, determine the prevalence of FOLFOXIRI use, and compare survival outcomes in mCRC, stratified by BRAF mutation status and first-line therapy. Methods: A nationwide electronic health record–derived deidentified database was reviewed for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2013 and 2018. Those with documented BRAF mutation testing who received standard first-line therapy were included. Kaplan-Meier estimates with corresponding log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling compared survival outcomes stratified by BRAF status and first-line therapy. Results: Of 4,457 included patients, 3,991 (89.5%) had BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) and 466 (10.5%) had BRAF-mutated (BRAFmt) mCRC. Median overall survival (OS) was 15.4 months in the BRAFmt group versus 28.1 months in the BRAFwt group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41–0.56; P<.001). Only 3% of patients with BRAF mutations received first-line FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab, with a median OS of 13.8 months compared with 15.5 months in those treated with doublet chemotherapy ± bevacizumab (P=.38). In patients with BRAF mutations, propensity-weighted analysis did not detect a significant improvement in OS with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.58–1.39; P=.63) or FOLFOX/CAPEOX + bevacizumab (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52–1.26; P=.35) versus doublet chemotherapy alone. In 2018, only 56% of patients diagnosed with mCRC had documented BRAF testing at any time. Conclusions: This real-world data analysis confirms the negative prognostic impact of BRAF mutations in mCRC and suggests that FOLFOXIRI has not been widely adopted in the United States. The proportion of patients with documented BRAF testing in this real-world population was low at 56%. We were unable to show any significant difference in OS of patients with BRAFmt mCRC based on the first-line therapy received.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer provide recommendations regarding diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel discussions for the 2018 update of the guidelines regarding risk stratification and adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, and treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.