Report from the Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference Virtual Education Series—Transition from Local to System Therapy and Optimal Sequencing of Systemic Therapy for HCC

The Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference (WC-5) convened virtually on 10 February 2021. The WC-5 is an interactive multidisciplinary conference attended by health care professionals from across Western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) who are involved in the care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists; pathologists; radiologists; and allied health care professionals participated in presentation and discussion sessions for the purpose of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses current issues in the management of hepatocellular cancer (HCC). Recommendations have been made for the transition from local to systemic therapy and the optimal sequencing of systemic regimens in the management of HCC.

Optimal Sequencing and Predictive Biomarkers in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer

The treatment landscape of advanced prostate cancer has completely changed during the last decades. Chemotherapy (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSi) (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide), and radium-223 have revolutionized the management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 is also going to become another treatment option for these patients. In addition, docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, enzalutamide, and radiotherapy to primary tumor have demonstrated the ability to significantly prolong the survival of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Finally, apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide have recently provided impactful data in patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant disease (nmCRPC). However, which is the best treatment sequence for patients with advanced prostate cancer? This comprehensive review aims at discussing the available literature data to identify the optimal sequencing approaches in patients with prostate cancer at different disease stages. Our work also highlights the potential impact of predictive biomarkers in treatment sequencing and exploring the role of specific agents (i.e., olaparib, rucaparib, talazoparib, niraparib, and ipatasertib) in biomarker-selected populations of patients with prostate cancer (i.e., those harboring alterations in DNA damage and response genes or PTEN).

Treatment of Locally Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Few treatment advances have been observed in recent years for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The goal remains to find approaches beyond FOLFOX and bevacizumab that will prolong remission. Immunotherapy for patients with microsatellite instability–high tumors represents progress, but this is a very small subset and approximately 30% of patients will not experience response. In locally advanced CRC, good long-term outcomes and manageable toxicity are being achieved with contemporary treatment strategies. Total neoadjuvant therapy, which incorporates induction or consolidation chemotherapy, has improved the treatment of patients with rectal cancer and is now a standard of care, although optimal sequencing is still being debated. Nonoperative management is an emerging option for sphincter preservation, and ongoing studies are evaluating the omission of radiation in select patients.

Concurrent Cetuximab and Nivolumab as a Second-Line or beyond Treatment of Patients with Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results of Phase I/II Study

We hypothesized the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab would improve survival in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) HNSCC by providing synergy in cancer control and evaluated toxicities and efficacy of the combination. Effects of sequential administration of cetuximab and anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) were also explored. Patients who failed at least one line of palliative treatment for incurable HNSCC were treated with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV on Day (D)-14 as a lead-in followed by cetuximab 500 mg/m2 IV and nivolumab 240 mg/m2 IV on D1 and D15 every 28-D cycle. Electronic health record-derived real-world data (RWD) were used to explore sequential treatment effects of CPI and cetuximab. A total of 45 evaluable patients were analyzed, and 31/45 (69%) patients had prior exposure to either CPI or cetuximab. The only grade 4 treatment-related adverse event was cetuximab infusion reaction in one patient. The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 19% and 44%, respectively. Although patients with no prior CPI (23/45, 51%) showed a trend for more favorable PFS relative to patients with prior CPI (22/45, 49%), the improvement in the 1-year OS did not reach the statistical threshold. For evaluation of sequential CPI and cetuximab treatment effects, we selected RWD-cetuximab cohort with 173 patients and RWD-CPI cohort with 658 patients from 6862 R/M HNSCC. Our result suggested patients treated with RWD-cetuximab after RWD-CPI had worse OS compared to no prior RWD-CPI (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02–3.16). Our data suggest the combination of cetuximab and nivolumab is well tolerated. Optimal sequencing of cetuximab and CPI may have an impact in prognosis and requires further evaluation.