Raed Moh’d Taiseer Al-Rajabi

PURPOSE Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this open-label, phase III study, we randomly assigned (1:1) 628 patients with advanced/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, that progressed after one prior therapy, to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and in all patients (one-sided α 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.8%, respectively). RESULTS At final analysis, conducted 16 months after the last patient was randomly assigned, OS was prolonged with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with CPS ≥ 10 (median, 9.3 v 6.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93]; P = .0074). Estimated 12-month OS rate was 43% (95% CI, 33.5% to 52.1%) with pembrolizumab versus 20% (95% CI, 13.5% to 28.3%) with chemotherapy. Median OS was 8.2 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96]; P = .0095) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.05]; P = .0560) in all patients. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients with pembrolizumab versus 40.9% in those who underwent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

Importance: Standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer includes concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT plus A). An alternative strategy known as total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) involves administration of CRT plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery with the goal of delivering uninterrupted systemic therapy to eradicate micrometastases. A comparison of these 2 approaches has not been systematically reviewed previously. Objective: To determine the differences in rates of pathologic complete response (PCR), disease-free and overall survival, sphincter-preserving surgery, and ileostomy between patients receiving TNT vs standard CRT plus A. Data Sources: MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase (via OVID) were searched from inception through July 1, 2020, for the following terms: anal/anorectal neoplasms OR anal/anorectal cancer AND total neoadjuvant treatment OR total neoadjuvant therapy. Only studies in English were included. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials or prospective/retrospective cohort studies comparing outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received TNT vs CRT plus A. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data regarding the first author, publication year, location, sample size, and rates of PCR, sphincter-preserving surgery, ileostomy, and disease-free and overall survival were extracted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of PCR, sphincter-preserving surgery, ileostomy, and disease-free and overall survival. Results: After reviewing 2165 reports, 7 unique studies including a total of 2416 unique patients, of whom 1206 received TNT, were selected. The median age for the patients receiving TNT ranged from 57 to 69 years, with 58% to 73% being male. The pooled prevalence of PCR was 29.9% (range, 17.2%-38.5%) in the TNT group and 14.9% (range, 4.2%-21.3%) in the CRT plus A group. Total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a higher chance of achieving a PCR (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% CI, 1.99-2.98). No statistically significant difference in the proportion of sphincter-preserving surgery (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.73-1.54) or ileostomy (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.46) between recipients of TNT and CRT plus A was observed. Only 3 studies presented data on disease-free survival, and pooled analysis showed significantly higher odds of improved disease-free survival in patients who received TNT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.20-3.56; I2 = 49%). Data on overall survival were not consistently reported. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that TNT is a promising strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer, with superior rates of PCR compared with standard therapy. However, the long-term effect on disease recurrence and overall survival needs to be explored in future studies.

BACKGROUND: PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have recently been approved for various malignancies based on the results of several clinical trials. However, these trials have mostly recruited patients with germline BRCA mutations, and it is unclear whether PARPi have similar efficacy in patients with somatic BRCA mutations. Our study aimed to determine the efficacy of PARPi in patients with somatic BRCA mutations. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis comparing overall response rate to PARPi in patients harboring somatic versus germline BRCA mutations. We looked at studies including somatic and germline mutations in BRCA patients that received PARPi. RESULTS: After screening and removing duplicates, 18 studies met our criteria for including both somatic and germline BRCA mutations. Only 8 studies reported response rates for both somatic and germline BRCA mutations. In those studies, 24 out of 43 patients with somatic BRCA mutations (55.8%), and 69 out of 157 (43.9%) patients with germline BRCA patients had a response to therapy to PARPi. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.399). In all five studies that reported progression-free survival, there was no obvious difference in outcomes between somatic versus germline BRCA patients, however a precise statistical analysis could not be performed. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature indicates similar response rates of PARPi therapy in patients with somatic and germline BRCA mutations. Investigation of use of PARPi therapy in a broader patient population, and the inclusion of somatic BRCA mutations in further clinical trials is paramount in improving therapeutic options for our patients.