1
|
Ludford K, Raghav KPS, Blum Murphy MA, Fleming ND, Nelson DA, Lee MS, Smaglo BG, You YN, Tillman MM, Kamiya-Matsuoka C, Thirumurthi S, Messick C, Johnson B, Vilar Sanchez E, Dasari A, Thomas JV, Foo WC, Qiao W, Kopetz S, Overman MJ. Safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab in mismatch repair deficient localized/locally advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.2520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
2520 Background: Pembrolizumab (Pembro), anti-PD1 therapy, is FDA approved for refractory microsatellite instability high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) advanced/metastatic solid tumors. The robust activity of anti-PD1 therapy in these tumors argues for a neoadjuvant organ-sparing approach. However, the role of anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting is unknown. Methods: This is a phase 2 open-label, single center trial (NCT04082572) of MSI-H/dMMR non-metastatic solid tumors with localized unresectable or high risk resectable (defined as ≥ 20% recurrence) with measurable disease per RECISTv1.1 and ECOG PS 0/1. Treatment is Pembro 200mg every 3 wks for 8 cycles (6 months) followed by surgical resection with option to continue therapy for 18 cycles (12 months) followed by observation. First restaging is at 6 wks and includes baseline and 3-week 70-gene ctDNA assessment. To continue on study, patients are required to have PR/CR, SD with tumor shrinkage or SD with decline in ctDNA [highest variant allele frequency (VAF) baseline mutation]. The co-primary endpoints are safety and pathological complete response (pCR). Key secondary endpoints are response rate and organ-sparing at one year for patients who declined surgery. Results: Between 12/2019 and 2/2021, 32 pts were enrolled and treated. Enrolment goal of 35 anticipated to be met by 4/2021. Baseline characteristics included 13 females, median age of 63 yrs (range 26 - 91), Lynch syndrome in 12 pts, BRAF V600E mutation in 11 pts. Tumor type included 24 CRC and 8 non-CRC (1 endometrial, 1 gastric, 1 meningeal, 2 duodenal, 1 ampullary, 2 pancreatic). At baseline disease was resectable in 23 (72%). Among 30 evaluable pts, best overall response rate was 77%: 30% CR (n = 9), 47% PR (n = 14), 20% SD (n = 6), 3% PD (n = 1). Only one pt progressed after initial SD of -18%. Median follow-up is 6.1 months (range 0.1 - 14). Among the 6 (20%) pts who underwent surgery, pCR was seen in 3 (50%). A non-operative approach (pembro for 12 months) has been chosen in 15 pts and 1-year organ-sparing was seen in 2/2 evaluable pts. Treatment-related grade 3/4 immune adverse events (TRAE) were seen in 3 (9%) pts: grade 3 immune hepatitis (2) and grade 3 type 1 diabetes (1). Baseline ctDNA was positive in 17 (53%) pts with a median of 4 mutations per pt (1 - 35) and median highest VAF of 0.9% (range 0.3% to 38.2%). Among 26 pts with successful tumor tissue testing, median tumor mutations were 10.5, range 1 to 21 (Oncomine 134 gene panel). ctDNA decline at 3 weeks was seen in 14/17 (82%) patients. Luminal disease was present in 24 pts with endoscopic response of: CR in 13 (54%), major response 1, pending follow-up evaluation 6, not evaluated 3, and no response in 1. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab is safe with encouraging clinical activity and this data suggests that a non-operative management for dMMR/MSI-H localized solid tumors should receive further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT04082572.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Douglas A. Nelson
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, The Woodlands, TX
| | | | | | - Y. Nancy You
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Carlos Kamiya-Matsuoka
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Houston, TX
| | - Selvi Thirumurthi
- Department of Gastroenterology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Craig Messick
- Department of Surgical Oncology; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Benny Johnson
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Eduardo Vilar Sanchez
- Departments of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Clinical Cancer Prevention, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Arvind Dasari
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Jane V Thomas
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wai Chin Foo
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Wei Qiao
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Scott Kopetz
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Peacock O, Limvorapitak T, Hu CY, Bednarski BK, Tillman MM, Kaur H, Taggart MW, Dasari A, Holliday EB, You YN, Chang GJ. Robotic rectal cancer surgery: comparative study of the impact of obesity on early outcomes. Br J Surg 2020; 107:1552-1557. [PMID: 32996597 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.12023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Accepted: 08/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) in obese versus non-obese patients. A total of 533 patients, of whom 161 were obese (30·2 per cent) underwent robotic proctectomy during the study interval. Patient obesity was not associated with adverse short-term clinical outcomes after robotic rectal cancer surgery. Indicated in the obese perhaps?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Peacock
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - T Limvorapitak
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - C-Y Hu
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B K Bednarski
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - M M Tillman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - H Kaur
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - M W Taggart
- Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - A Dasari
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - E B Holliday
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Y N You
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - G J Chang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|