Shadia I. Jalal

Importance: Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months. Intervention: Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration. Results: Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

The repair of DNA damage is a complex process that relies on particular pathways to remedy specific types of damage to DNA. The range of insults to DNA includes small, modest changes in structure including mismatched bases and simple methylation events to oxidized bases, intra- and interstrand DNA crosslinks, DNA double strand breaks and protein-DNA adducts. Pathways required for the repair of these lesions include mismatch repair, base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, and the homology directed repair/Fanconi anemia pathway. Each of these pathways contributes to genetic stability, and mutations in genes encoding proteins involved in these pathways have been demonstrated to promote genetic instability and cancer. In fact, it has been suggested that all cancers display defects in DNA repair. It has also been demonstrated that the ability of cancer cells to repair therapeutically induced DNA damage impacts therapeutic efficacy. This has led to targeting DNA repair pathways and proteins to develop anti-cancer agents that will increase sensitivity to traditional chemotherapeutics. While initial studies languished and were plagued by a lack of specificity and a defined mechanism of action, more recent approaches to exploit synthetic lethal interaction and develop high affinity chemical inhibitors have proven considerably more effective. In this review we will highlight recent advances and discuss previous failures in targeting DNA repair to pave the way for future DNA repair targeted agents and their use in cancer therapy.