The Educational Branch of COLONTOWN

COLONTOWN University

COLONTOWN University

Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Early-stage BRAF V600E MSS colon cancer — What’s next after adjuvant treatment

Early-stage BRAF V600E MSS colon cancer: What’s next after adjuvant treatment

DocTalk
2024
Dr. Yaeger
BRAF
MSS
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Rona Yaeger from Memorial Sloan Kettering discusses how to approach early-stage BRAFV600E MSS colon cancer following adjuvant treatment with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in June, 2024.

Manju George  0:00 
Hello, everyone. Welcome to DocTalks. I’m Dr. Manju George, the Scientific Director at PALTOWN Development Foundation, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN. Today we have Dr. Rona Yaeger from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to talk to us about what’s next after adjuvant treatment for early stage BRAF mutated MSS colon cancer. But before we start, I want to ask Dr. Yaeger how she got interested in GI oncology,  and in doing the kind of work that she does. Welcome.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  0:33 
Manju, thank you for having me, it’s a pleasure to be here. Like you mentioned, I’m very lucky that I get to focus on an area that interests me a lot. I work on colorectal cancer and targeted therapies. I find genetics very interesting. And when I was younger, and I saw the way you could see how colorectal cancer develops from polyps, I thought this is really an interesting area to work. And I like the relationships we have with patients, where I have many patients I’ve treated for many years, and have a very close relationship. So I felt like this was the right area for me. I see patients one day a week. And then I run clinical trials and also have a wet lab. So I have a nice combination of kind of all the components. But the actual work we do is very focused on colorectal cancer and targeted therapies. So thank you for having me and give me the chance to give an update on what’s next, potentially after adjuvant therapy for colon cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation that’s microsatellite stable.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  1:40 
So I wanted to just start off by talking about how we treat early stage colon cancer, and what we think of when we see these tumors. So this is a slide kind of showing the current paradigm of treatment. So initially, patients are diagnosed either they will have a screening colonoscopy, and something might be found in the colon, or they may have symptoms that lead to an evaluation with a colonoscopy that can show mass within the colon that is biopsied and comes back as cancer. The next step is to be sure there’s no evidence of spread. So patients have scans to look at the body, usually a CT scan to make sure there’s no evidence of spread. And if there isn’t, and the colon tumor is limited, the next stage is what we call a resection where we remove the cancer. So here you can see within the bowel, there is an abnormality that is removed, and then the bowel is reconnected. Following that, the tumor that is removed is studied under the microscope by pathologists who generate a report describing what they see. And that’s what’s used for risk assessment. So patients who have a tumor that’s limited to the colon has no evidence of distance spread are early stage. And if the tumor has higher risk features, such as having lymph nodes involved, involving the full thickness of the bowel wall, we often suggest additional treatment with chemotherapy with a goal to reduce the risk of recurrence. And if patients don’t have this features, they are then observed. And we watched patients for a total of five years, after which the chance of recurrence is so low that we say that’s it, you’re cured and you don’t need to be followed so closely. So this is our current paradigm. And we know that most patients are cured following this current paradigm, but there are some patients who still recur, even despite chemotherapy. So this brings up the question, is there anything more to do for those patients?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  3:40 
So my next slide is looking at colorectal cancer both in advanced disease and early stage disease, where we now see that it’s particularly when we think of advanced disease, the colorectal cancer isn’t a single cancer. We can define different subsets of patients and tailor treatment based on how the cancer is developed. So the first group that I want to point out is this MSI high. Patients who have tumors or MSI high either have a genetic predisposition, or they have a colon tumor that has evolved in such a way that it feeds into a similar pathway. And MSI, what does that mean? Basically, when cells divide, they need to make another copy of their DNA. And there are stretches within the DNA where you have the same letter are the same two letters of DNA that repeat. And in those structures when you make another copy, it’s easy for the enzyme that is filling in those nucleotides to slip because you see the same two letters repeating over and over. And so when that happens, there is afterwards a proofreading, where the copy that’s made is checked to be sure that it matches what was there in the kind of parent strand. And so people who have inherited problems with this proofreading function- there’s this cancer syndrome called Lynch, or people who have silenced the proofreading function in the development of the colon tumor or have what’s called microsatellite, unstable, MSI high colon cancer. And that name comes from the fact that these stretches are what’s called microsatellites and they’re unstable because they can be shorter or longer if you don’t have correct proofreading. So that’s a small group of patients with advanced disease. But it’s very important because first of all, those patients may have a genetic risk, and they need to be followed more closely and their family should be alerted. And also, there is now Immunotherapy. So they respond differently to treatment than other patients. But beyond that group, in patients with advanced disease, we have many subsets depending on how the cancer has developed. And one group is what you see in our title is this BRAF V 600E, where there’s a mutation in a gene called BRAF that can turn on signal to the cancer to grow. And that has target therapy associated with that. So we treat those patients differently. It’s also important because patients with advanced disease who have a BRAF mutation in their cancer have a more aggressive disease. And we know that the presence of BRAF V 600E mutation marks a group of patients who have a kind of a more aggressive, a tougher prognosis. And so those are patients we want to think about and figure out how we can give them matched therapy and what more we could do for them. There are other groups in advanced disease, we have other groups with matched treatment, patients who have amplification of a gene called HER2, or a specific mutation in KRAS you may see, I’m sure there’s a lot in Colontown about Biomarkers. So these are markers that we think about in patients with advanced disease. And we actually split the pie into what is driving the patient’s cancer, and how can we target that.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  7:01
When we look at early stage colon cancer, so again, this is colon cancer that’s limited to the bowel, has not spread beyond local lymph nodes, and is removed surgically. We really only think about this one biomarker, the MSI, and we know those patients do a lot better. And there’s a lot of studies now looking at giving Immunotherapy, potentially, after surgery, some trials even in lieu of surgery. So that’s an area of a lot of research. But the rest of the patients who have microsatellite stable colon cancer, are treated the same. And this is the large majority. And in the rising incidence of colon cancer in young people, most of those tumors developing microsatellite stable. So we know that in early stage colon cancer, there’s also a subset that had BRAF B 600E mutation. And there’s a subset that have this BRAF mutation that are not MSI high. It’s about 6% of patients. And we’re going to focus on them today for two reasons. The first is, like I said that in advanced disease, they have a worse prognosis. And we know that in early stage disease, they have a higher risk of recurrence. And the second is we have a matched treatment for them. We have a targeted therapy that goes after the BRAF, the altered BRAF. And so there’s a potential to do more.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  8:18
So what does it mean to say, oh, there’s this mutation and BRAF. What does that do for the cancer. So I have here a cartoon of a cell, and I’ll walk you through it. So basically, normally, a cell will only divide and grow if there is a stimulus to the cell, saying it’s a good time to grow. And so there are growth factors that lie outside the cell. This is the outside of the cell. Here, you can see below the membrane inside of the cell that bind to receptors on the surface, these receptors are meant to sense what’s going on outside. And when the growth factors bind, they basically are telling the cell this is a good time to grow, there’s a reason to grow. And when that happens, that signal is carried to the nucleus through a bunch of proteins that include the RAS protein, which is often mutated in colorectal cancer, and also RAF, which includes BRAF as one of the RAF proteins, and they signal down this group of proteins to get to the nucleus to say to the cells, it’s time to grow, we should divide we should survive. But at the same time, these signals are turned on normally there’s a counter signal, that puts a stop. So cells divide a little bit and then they stop. What happens in cancer is cells divide and they divide irrespective of having any growth factors, they just divide on their own, and they don’t have the normal brakes. So for example, this BRAF V600E is a mutation in BRAF, it turns on this RAF member and makes the RAF member turn on irrespective of what’s happening outside the cell. In fact, the BRAF V600E doesn’t need any activation from RAS, it’s on all the time. And if there is a feedback to turn off the signal, the BRAF is on on all the time, it’s insensitive to that. So that allows the cancer to keep growing. And all cancers have to figure out a way to keep growing. This is one way the BRAF mutation. Another way is the KRAS mutations that we often see. But today we’re focusing on BRAF, because as I’ve said, there’s matched treatment for it. So this matched treatment, there is an FDA  approved treatment for patients who have advanced disease where the tumor has spread beyond the bowel. So distant sites like liver or lung who have received prior treatment with chemotherapy. There’s an FDA approved a treatment based on an improvement in the time to progression for patients compared to standard therapy, patients live longer who get targeted therapy, and the quality of life is preserved. The targeted therapy consists of two components. It consists of a pill, BRAFTOVI is the trade name, encorafenib is the generic name. Patients take four tablets once a day. And it’s combined with an infusion called cetuximab that’s given intravenously, it can be given weekly or every other week, together with the pills taken daily. And what these drugs do the encorafenib+Braftovi binds to the activated BRAF and turns it off. And that’s the cetuximab binds to the receptor and turns off any other input into this growth pathway to hopefully turn off all the growth signal and to stop the cancer from growing. It doesn’t necessarily work for every patient. But most patients with advanced disease have some regression. And we think that this combination can stop the growth signal and most cancers that have a BRAF V600E. Most colorectal cancers, they have a BRAF V600E mutation.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  11:46
So how about early stage disease. So, like we said, most patients are cured. So these are curves that look at recurrence and survival after recurrence. So I’ll walk you through it. But basically, in black, you see the curve for patients who don’t have a mutation in the BRAF gene, or in the KRAS gene who have microsatellite stable and not the MSI high colon cancer. And you can see that all our curves are above 50%. Most patients are cured. But there is a big gap between the black and the blue or the blue is BRAF V600E mutated.  In the middle is a KRAS mutated so you see that the BRAF causes a higher risk of recurrence, but it’s a small effect. However, when patients recur, this is the survival after recurrence, we see having the BRAF leads to worse outcomes. So if we could prevent patients from getting to the point of recurring, it would make a big difference. So that’s what we are looking at with a new clinical trial that I am excited to talk about today. This is a trial that’s being done through the NCI so it’s open across the country. And it is open for patients who have early stage so stage three so that’s colon cancer that involves local lymph nodes, or stage two, T4, T4 means the tumor involves a full thickness of the bowel wall. So like if our bowel were like a hose, the tumor would reach the other side of the hose. You can see it through but it does not spread to distant site and might touch an adjacent organ but it is a contiguous involvement. So stage III, so nodal involvement from colon cancer or T4 full bowel wall thickness, patients who have received standard treatments, so these patients are considered higher risk, they would receive chemotherapy. In the study, if their tumor has a BRAF V600E mutation, they are randomized, half the patients will get usual care, which is observation after they finished chemo and half the patients are getting the targeted treatment of encorafanib and cetuximab for six months.

Dr. Rona Yaeger 13:46 
BRAF V600E testing is not currently standard, because like we said, we don’t really do anything with it. So patients who whose doctor has tested them for BRAF V600E, and know that their  tumor has a BRAF mutation, they can go on study based on that. But if their doctor did not test for it, if their site participates in this clinical trial, we set up retesting through the NCI where a few slides can be sent to a central lab. That’s a single lab working with the clinical trial, the single lab is in Dartmouth, a few sites can be sent and then your doctor will get a result BRAF V600 E mutation present or BRAF V600E mutation not detected. The patients start the study after they complete treatment. So there’s a lot of time after surgery, to think about the trial and patients only enroll after they complete treatment. So we account for the different treatments and also for the different extent of disease that patients had when they go on study. So this stratification is to make sure we have in both arms and equal group of patients who got FOLFOX or CAPOX–these are the two standard chemotherapies given for colon cancer. We stratified by the the length of time they got treatment, if they got three months or longer than three months, and also by the extent of the tumor that was removed, how far the tumor penetrate the bowel wall and were lymph nodes involved. And then we also stratify for something called circulating tumor DNA. What that is, is there are small fragments of DNA that are released by cells, they can be released by our normal cells, and they can be released by cancer cells. And they are available in the blood, in the circulation. So if the patient still has cancer cells present in their body, those cancer cells can release small fragments. And they can be detected. For example, they might have the BRAF V600E mutation. So there’s blood tests that are available to test for this, its not a standard test, but it’s being increasingly done with patients who have early stage disease. And if patients had this detectable DNA fragments from the tumor, we we want to have them on equal groups, because we know that that is associated with higher risk of recurrence. And the patients are then treated for the six months versus observation, you know what arm you get, there is no blinding, and then they’re watched, they’re followed as you would anyway, with scans and with blood tests to see what happens.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  16:13
So I just want to go over a little bit about the endpoints of the study and who is eligible. And then I’m happy to discuss and take any questions. So this trial is called a phase 2/phase 3 study, a phase 2 study is looking at the efficacy of an intervention saying how effective is this? And the phase 3 is saying how does this compare to what we do as a standard? So the phase 3 is saying do we affect the disease free survival? Do we have fewer patients recur when they get this treatment? But that’s a long endpoint, we have to follow patients for years. So we put in the study a phase 2, where we could look sooner and enroll fewer patients and be sure that there is something happening with this combination, before opening to the full phase 3. And so we’re looking at the circulating tumor DNA. In the patients who have circulating tumor DNA present, do they clear it more when they get this treatment compared to just observing them. And in the ones that don’t have detectable circulating tumor DNA, do they remain without detectable circulating tumor DNA, where they are in treatment, and if either group looks better for the treatment, we are good to continue and to proceed to the phase 3. The secondary endpoints, the other things we’re watching is we’re evaluating people for overall survival, we’re checking their toxicities from this treatment. And we’re looking at this alternative disease free survival from the time in which they had surgery to match with the published data on disease free survival. We’re looking at patients in the subset who have positive circulating tumor DNA, because we know they have a higher risk of recurrence. So maybe this is only helpful for those patients. And then we’re asking patients to fill out information-key symptoms associated with these drugs, which include rash, diarrhea, fatigue.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  17:58 
And so who is eligible? We went through a lot of this, but I want to reiterate –patients with colon cancer, that is stage III, that means colon cancer involving lymph nodes, or stage II, that is T4 involving the full thickness of the bowel wall, the patient’s tumor has a V600E mutation. If you don’t know if you have it, your doctor can send it to a central test, it requires only three slides and you get the result within a few days. Or if your doctor has already tested for that and they found that you have a BRAF mutation in your tumor, that is sufficient to get on study. The tumor has to be microsatellite stable, or mismatch repair proficient, so not that group that is MSI high that does better. All patients going on the study have to receive chemotherapy first. We require at least five cycles of FOLFOX or three cycles of CAPOX, they have to go on within eight weeks of completing treatment, no other cancer therapy besides the surgery and the chemotherapy, this is how well they have to be , you have to be more or less okay up in about for at least half the day. We know people just got chemo so we’re trying to be flexible, but we want them to be well enough to be on study. Similarly, we have some lab parameters, which we tried to make very flexible, because we know people just got chemo so their blood counts might be low.

Dr. Rona Yaeger 19:15 
So this is a national study. It is open in sites across the country. This is a map that  shows the number of sites currently, this is from clinical trials.gov. And you can see that in the northeast, we’re open in New York and Boston. We’re open in the Chicago area. It is open in Minnesota and Ohio. There are sites in Texas, and there are more sites coming online. I’m happy to connect people and to try to help figure out what site is closest. And also to turn to local hospitals and see if maybe they can open the study if there are patients who are interested. So this is my final slide I wanted to put up here. This is the clinical trials.gov ID for this trial. And this is the formal name of the study. It is a randomized study of the additional treatment with encorafenib and cetuximab versus observation for patients with Stage III or stage IIII BRAF V 600E in colon cancer. And I want to give a shout out to Qing Shi, she’s a statistician who helped me design the study. And the study’s open through the NCI, we have it open through multiple NCI groups to hopefully have national coverage. Thank you.

Manju George  20:31 
Okay, thank you so much, Dr. Yaeger. There are a couple of questions in chat. So one question is,  the patient, he’s concerned about once somebody enrolls in this trial, and then there is a recurrence and he’s on, encorafenib + cetux. What happens, he is using that one line of therapy already, right? So what are you thoughts on that?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  21:02
That’s a good question. So when the patients go on study, we do a CT scan, first, make sure they go on without any visible disease. But say a patient, like you’re saying in the scenario gets the six months of encorafenib+ cetuximab, and during that time, recurs. So that means that that tumor recurred through this treatment. So it is true, you wouldn’t give that treatment later, but it’s also true that for that tumor that treatment wasn’t doing enough, right? Because if the tumor was able to recur through it, even in the advanced setting, where are you starting treatment, when you see it, it was not giving you enough. There are trials for patients with advanced disease, but this is the only FDA approved treatment right now, that is matched for a BRAF V600E mutation. I think, while it is possible, this could happen and you wouldn’t want to give that treatment again, I think that it’s not highly likely, it’s quite unlikely to recur. First of all, the patient just had a scan, and they’re being followed within the first six months. And also we know that if you look at advanced disease, most people have some response, some shrinkage with this combination. But it’s true. It could happen. And if it does, this is just not the right treatment for your cancer.

Manju George  22:21 
Okay, continuation to that question is that they are wondering that prior exposure to E+C would make them ineligible for a trial like the SWOG 2107? Yeah, that would be the case.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  22:36 
Yeah, that would be the case. Because this trial, you mentioned is this combination of encorafenib and cetuximab  versus this combination plus Immunotherapy. And if this tumor was able to grow through it’s not a good treatment for that cancer. And so that trial, one half of it is giving you a treatment where the tumor would have already grown through that. So that is correct. Yeah. So we’re saying if you give it earlier, do you do better? And we don’t know. That’s, that’s what we’re asking.

Manju George  23:07 
Yeah. Okay. And then the question I have is that like, so the assumption is that, because these are people without any visible disease, getting them on encorafenib plus cetux early on, you’re trying even if there is microscopic disease growing that is not yet visible, because the tumor volume is so low this treatment is like, it’s almost like prophylactic treatment to prevent or delay the recurrence. Is that what the idea is?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  23:39
Exactly? That’s an idea. We don’t see anything. We know some people will recur,  so some people must have microscopic disease. And we’re trying to hopefully prevent the recurrence, or at least, to delay the recurrence and there is precedent in melanoma. The treatment with these BRAF drugs actually improves the cure rate, not these, but with BRAF drugs, improves the cure rate and we know in lung cancer, targeted therapy can also after surgery, improve the cure rate. So there’s precedent, but there’s no experience for this in colorectal cancer. So, so we don’t know we’re looking at patients with colon cancer here. Yeah.

Manju George  24:14 
Okay. And I think so this patient is saying that it’s a tough choice. Okay. So they’re asking why is the therapy not six months? Oh, I think they’re asking why the patient’s only need– I’m hoping that what this person is asking– is that you say that the patient should have at least three months of adjuvant chemo and then they’re eligible, right?

Dr. Rona Yaeger 24:14 
Yes, exactly. So they should get standard treatment at least three months, then they can go on to study and then we limited the time of the target therapy as six months. Because when we look at the effects of target therapy in the advanced setting, we see the greatest benefit within the six first six months.

Manju George  24:59
Okay. That makes sense. I hope your question is answered. And then I think that like from from our BRAF group, what we have generally seen is that, people after they have the treatment, they finish urgent treatment, they are very nervous about what to do next. So in that setting, I think having a trial like this, it’s something to do, because otherwise patients are just waiting. Many of them are really anxious that they might have a disease recurrence. So with this trial they have the feeling that they’re doing something more proactively to catch it, and then to do something about it. Right?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  25:37
Yeah, exactly. And so we’re thinking, this is a subgroup, but we have something we can do, and there is enough of a risk that we think it’s worth testing. Yeah.

Manju George  25:48 
Okay. And so the next question is, would stage IV have any chance of using this maybe after chemo can staging ever go down from 4 to 3.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  26:02 
So there are patients who have stage IV colon cancer, who can have all the tumor removed. And there are patients who have stage IV disease where the tumor is too extensive to remove. In the patients where it’s not all removed, these are FDA approved, they can get the BRAF therapy. In the ones where they might have a single or a few liver or lung lesions that can be removed, we don’t have data at that point for giving the additional BRAF treatment. And this study, we limited to patients who have stage II or III because we’re trying to select a group that is very similar. So it’s unknown. So at this point, if someone has stage IV, and they enter what we call NED, there’s no evidence of disease, they shift from visible disease where all disease is removed, they would be watched. Your doctor will guide you in terms of how long to do chemotherapy, but afterwards, just like the early stage patients, they’re watched and many of them can be cured. If this study, were positive, we may end up thinking about that stage IV setting but this study is limited to the stage II, stage III.

Manju George  27:14 
Okay, Thank you. And I think I asked this question before we started the call. But we also have patients who are MSI. High. Could you please explain why they are not included in this trial?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  27:27
Yeah, so the patients who are MSI high have a much lower rate of recurrence. So the stage II patients who are MSI high colon cancer, the rate of recurrence is actually very low. And most of those patients we just watch. And then the stage III setting there is some recurrence but the risk is a lot less than for the MSS, BRAF, V600E. And there are also studies in that group for Immunotherapy. So we think that there’s a very good tool available, and that rather than develop this treatment, in patients who are MSI high or the BRAF mutation, we’re giving a chance for the Immunotherapy data to develop where we think if more treatment is needed, there is a good tool there that could have a long, long effect. Patients here who are MSS can’t get Immunotherapy, the tumors don’t respond. And so we have to find another way to go after it. And that’s why we’re doing the targeted therapy here.

Manju George  27:51 
Okay, that that makes sense. So the this question is, so someone coming off adjuvant chemo with a ctDNA negative, do those people have a lower risk of recurrence?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  28:47 
Yes, they do. So we know that having detectable ctDNA after treatment raise raises the risk of recurrence, probably there’s some cells that are making this circulating tumor DNA. If ctDNA is negative, the risk is lower, but it’s not zero. So our study is enrolling irrespective of circulating tumor DNA. So there are studies out there that are for circulating tumor DNA positive only, this study enrolls either way, but we take the circulating tumor DNA into account to make sure that there’s an equal number of patients in both groups with that with that feature. But you’re right, that is a very important prognostic marker.

Manju George  29:31 
Okay, thank you. And the next question is, I think I’m probably missed it. What is the number of people or number of slots that are available for this trial?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  29:41 
The trial has about 200 slots for the phase II component and about another 200 for the phase III. So in total, it’s up to 400. So lots of slots because it’s a small subset of patients, so it’s no issue in terms of slots for the study.

Manju George  29:57 
Okay, so, for a patient who was stage III or you know, T4 stage II. So your recommendation would be that, if they know that they are BRAF V 600E, mutated, they contact, the trial sites to find out if they can get on the trial almost when they come to know of their BRAF status?. Yeah. And then for for the other people who don’t know their BRAF status, how would they go about getting the tests? What do you suggest.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  30:33 
So if you’re interested in the study, anytime after surgery, even during chemotherapy, I would discuss it with your doctor who can set up the BRAF testing. They can do it, if they are set up to do it with their own labs, they can just do it that way. If not, they can send it to that NCI central site, and then they’ll tell you whether the BRAF mutation is detected. And if it is, then you can talk about whether to consider the study. And then after you finish treatment, you’re already set up you know what to do, you know, oh, I’m planning to consider the study I want to register, or I’m not interested in the study. If the testing is done through the NCI, there is a consent form. That’s a pre screening. So you’re already set up to easily enroll on the study. But we know that most patients who have the the testing will not have the BRAF mutation, it’s about 6% of patients overall, who are microsatellite stable and have a BRAF V600E mutation.

Manju George  31:30 
Okay, so my next question is, is there like a specific group of colon cancer patients that you know, with a higher chances of being BRAF that you would recommend to ask their oncologist for this test? Like, what would that group be?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  31:48
That’s a great question. BRAF is, like we said, it has a slightly higher recurrence. So it’s associated with T4, and N2. So that means tumors that penetrate deeper and involve more lymph nodes, we tend to see that go along with BRAF. You can see BRAF in patients who are older, but sometimes those are MSI high and not the MSS. But you can definitely see as people get older, there is a higher incidence of the BRAF mutation. But often it’s a less aggressive MSI high subset. Otherwise, there’s no easy marker.

Manju George  32:27 
What about like ceacal tumors or proximal colon?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  32:33 
Yeah, it’s more on the right side. Yeah, that’s a great point. So we talk about the colon is like an upside down U. So the first part of the colon you have that arm that you that goes up, and so that’s called the right side. So the Cecum, the first part of the colon or the ascending colon, the BRAF V600E mutation is more common there. But it can be anywhere along the colon. Yeah, that is correct.

Manju George  32:59 
Yeah. Okay. So for us to talk about it in in Colontown, we could say that people with T4 tumors, and especially they have T for N2, then we would strongly recommend that they talk to their care team about this trial. And if they have not got a BRAF V600E testing, then this would be a way to get it tested. And then they can decide if they want to be part of the trial or not. Right, this will be an opportunity to find out if they have high risk disease that may have a high slightly higher chance of recurrence. So this other question, is they are asking if you must enroll within eight weeks of conclusion of adjuvant chemo?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  33:46 
Yeah, because we don’t want to have some people who go on and have had such a long gap. So we try to keep it similar. Yeah, so that’s where we are.

Manju George  33:57 
Okay, so maybe then another point to keep in mind is that it might be as as soon as they know their TNM status, maybe at that time is the best time for them to reach out and find out if they are BRAF positive, right?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  34:11 
I agree.

Manju George  34:11 
Okay, So let me see if there are other questions.I’m not seeing any so let me think if I have anything else.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  34:31 
I’m happy to talk to anyone. The trial’s up in clinical trials.gov My email is on clinical trials.gov. You can send me a quick email if you want and say, Oh, I have this scenario. And I can say it looks like this is appropriate or it looks like this is not the right study. I’m happy to quickly screen for anyone. I’m happy to speak about BRAF V600E. You know, you can connect with me if needed. But yeah, it’s as you said, so the T4 Stage III patients, patients who are at higher risk, it’s worth considering if you’re T4N2, if there’s something more you can do, it’s probably worth considering. So that’s a good group to look for that BRAF mutation to see.

Manju George  35:10 
Okay, okay, I think Julie is making a list of firstl ine trials that we were wanting to give more information to patients.  So we could talk about this trial in stage II, as well as stage III groups, and then say that, you know, if you don’t know your BRAF status, and you have a T4 N2 tumor, then this will be a great opportunity to find out if you have in the unlikely chance that you have the BRAF mutation, here’s something else that you can do.

Manju George  35:44
There is another question.

Manju George  35:54 
Oh, I think this person is asking, which is just a little more explaining of what we think is happening while the patient is on treatment? Is it removing any microscopic cancer or suppressing it?

Dr. Rona Yaeger  36:09 
So what we think is that the patients on the study had all the cancer that we can see removed, but we know that many of them, that’s all the cancer there is, and they’re here. But for some of them, there are cells that we didn’t see that are still there. And so the goal of chemotherapy is to kill those cells. But not not everyone gets chemotherapy  is cured. So that means that some of those cells, some people who have those cells, it’s only a portion of patients, but some people will have those cells, the cells are able to survive the chemotherapy. So the goal here with the BRAF treatment, is to try to kill any cells that have a BRAF mutation. And that’s what we need the tumor to have a BRAF mutation to go on the study. But if those cells have a BRAF mutation, these drugs will go in your body and all your circulation will hopefully get to those cells and hopefully destroy them. And so if that’s possible, that would improve the cure rate. But we don’t know. So that’s why the study is randomized, because any treatment has some risks. So we’re saying, you know, is it is it worth it? Do do we affect the chance that the cancer will come back to affect patient survival with this treatment? And also we ask patients, like what were your side effects, was it worth being on the study?. But that’s our goal. But if there are some cells out there that have the BRAF mutation, this treatment can get there and hopefully kill those cells.

Manju George  37:32 
Okay. And then maybe, I don’t want you to explain a little bit about the the idea of emergence of resistance. And you know, the selection of those things depend on what’s the initial volume of the cells, right, like, if there is very micro metastatic disease, and the number of cells is so small, then the chances of resistance emerging is much lower when compared to when there is established disease.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  37:58
Exactly. So that’s our hope here. So when patients have metastatic disease that we can see, there’s actually millions and billions of cells. And so when you give the target therapy, you don’t usually cure patients. The tumor shrinks, you can get a nice response, but you don’t usually get rid of all of it. So our hope here is that there’s very little right, we don’t even see it. And so that treatment here might be sufficient to kill all of that, just like Manju said that when there’s less there, you have fewer cells available to find a way to outsmart the drug. And so maybe if you’re killing off a portion here, you can kill off all of them, especially because they’re simpler. They haven’t figured out a way to spread yet. They’re just few cells probably that haven’t yet implanted and extended to be a visible metastasis. So that’s the idea. And that’s why we take hope that in melanoma and lung cancer, they actually seem to be curing more patients. So we see a paradigm where it is possible.

Manju George  39:01 
Okay, Thank you so much. This is about the Stand Up To Cancer, the Dr. Parikh’s trial. Has the arm with the targeted treatment shown any promising data?

Dr. Rona Yaeger 39:16 
So the Stand Up To Cancer trial has a BRAF V600E arm for patients who are ctDNA positive, and they have a BRAF V 600E mutation. They get the same encorafenib and cetuximab, but they also get a MEK inhibitor, Binimetinib. So they’re getting a triplet therapy. The FDA approved double a therapy but the triplet therapy is meant to have a similar effect to shut down this pathway. At this point, there are too few patients treated on that arm for us to know. But it’s really a similar idea, but that arm is exploratory in the patients who have ctDNA positive. So on some level the study is asking the question in a bigger way but it’s a similar idea. If given BRAF therapy after chemo improves the chances the patients will be cured.

Manju George  40:09 
Okay, I think that’s all the questions. Thank you so much. And I think that we will probably also share your email address with everyone. So you know if they have any questions then they can reach out to you. Okay. A recording of the talk will be available on Colopntown University.

Dr. Rona Yaeger  40:30 
Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Manju George  40:34
Okay, take care. Bye. Thanks, everyone for attending.

DocTalk
2024
Dr. Yaeger
BRAF
MSS
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Rona Yaeger from Memorial Sloan Kettering discusses how to approach early-stage BRAFV600E MSS colon cancer following adjuvant treatment with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in June, 2024.

More Videos

BREAKWATER: 2026 Update
Dr. Kopetz
2026
BRAF Poster
Dr. Maddalena
2025
Early-stage BRAF V600E MSS colon cancer — What’s next after adjuvant treatment
Dr. Yaeger
2024
BREAKWATER trial
Dr. Kopetz
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Sharif
MSI-H
Immunotherapy
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Saima Sharif discusses early-stage MSI-H colon cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in December, 2023.

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to DocTalks. Today, we have Dr Pashtoon Kasi with us, and he will be talking aboutneoadjuvant, Bot/Bal in resectable mismatch proficient colorectal cancer. But before that, I want to ask Dr Kasi how he got involved in doing work on colorectal cancer. I’m not going to introduce Dr Kasi more, because for people from COLONTOWN, he’s a familiar figure. And the only thing I want to say is that if you’re interested in learning about what’s happening in the CRC world, I would recommend that you follow Dr Kasi on Twitter. So welcome, Dr Kasi.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 0:38
Oh, thank you again for the kind words, Manju. So in terms of how I started in oncology and GI, specifically in colorectal cancer, I think for me, the journey has been punctuated by the experiences during residency and fellowship and the mentors and the colleagues you encounter that inspire you to seek a particular pathway. Mayo Clinic is home to a lot of innovation when it comes to the role of GI oncology and colorectal cancer. Some of the regimens that we talk about, some of the figures who have shaped the whole field are folks that you get to walk the same hallway with, especially during the fellowship at Mayo Clinic that allowed me to focus on GI cancers and then colorectal cancer specifically moving forward.

Manju George 1:34
Okay, thank you very much. I also want to say that your poster was one of the most trafficked ones at GI ASCO, so we are really excited to hear about your work

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 1:43
Yeah, when I went to put up the poster at 6:15am before I could even put up the poster, there were people asking me about the poster. So and then, from six to nine, and then there was a brief break for the Bespoke CtDNA oral presentation, and there were people still walking upstairs with me. And then when I came back at 10:30 we were still talking till like 2:30 till they forced us to get out of the area. So again, it’s a good problem. I lost my voice later that evening.

Manju George 2:19
I can imagine. Okay. Thank you so much for doing this for us.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 2:25
No, thanks for having me. Yeah. So do you want me to discuss some of the high level updates and the about the trial in the background next?

Manju George 2:35
Yes, yes, please.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 2:37
So you know some of you might have seen some of the discussion, but I kind of wanted to high level describe, all the relevant findings to date. I have some slides, and I also then have the poster that we can dive into. But in terms of background there’s a lot of things going on the world of colorectal cancer in the last few years. Two things that are in particular, of note, that allowed us to develop this particular concept was, number 1), there’s been a neoadjuvant paradigm shift. So the term neoadjuvant means that treatment that you would do before somebody’s surgery happens. People are familiar with the term adjuvant chemo, which is kind of like the adjuvant or mop up chemo that you do to eliminate somebody’s cancer. The idea of doing that treatment beforehand is something that is already considered the standard for patients with rectal cancer, where you want to do your chemotherapy and or radiation if necessary, and the final plan for surgery is the last step. In fact, people have gone from neoadjuvant to something called TNT, which stands for Total Neodjuvant Therapy for rectal cancer. So that’s how quickly that has changed for patients with rectal cancer. In fact, all the trials moving forward are focusing on TNT as a strategy, not just neoadjuvant, but in general, for not just for colorectal cancer, but for all cancers, neoadjuvant studies, there are many things that why would one would want to do the systemic therapy part?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 4:11
First, a lot of our surgeons who like to operate, they’ve actually been in the proponent to help us understand that maybe them operating right away is not always the best strategy. There is suggestion that they might be perturbing the micro environment of the cancer by doing surgery first. There could be reasons to affecting your immune system in an adverse way, where they’re taking a lot of lymph nodes and things out at the time of surgery, you might be affecting drug delivery or the immune response that your body itself may be mounting. There’s also suggestion that maybe keeping the primary or the mothership where everything started would be helpful, that be part of the treatment plan, as you introduce, especially something like immunotherapy, and also just the whole stress of surgery itself. Even though patients are getting minimally invasive surgery or robotic surgery, especially for colon cancer, and literally going home the next day. Those are all things that are happening every day in our hospitals and other hospitals that are Centers for Excellence for colorectal cancer. But also you have to realize the body is still surviving that insult or injury, so to speak. So immune changes in a negative way could also be in the post operative phase. So for all these reasons, there’s suggestion or idea that maybe doing some treatment beforehand might help increase the chances of success, and some of the parallels have been happening in other tumor types. Melanoma or skin cancer, is one of the tumor types where a lot of research has been focusing on the vaccine, immunotherapy, before and after surgery, and they’ve been striking differences of the exact same treatment done in a clinical trial, randomized fashion, where outcomes were significantly better if the same treatment was done before surgery, as opposed to doing surgery first and thereafter.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 6:17
In the world of colorectal cancer, one trial that a lot of colleagues and patient advocate as well as caregivers, are familiar about is the story of the MSI high, or mismatch repair deficient colon and rectal cancer. And we’ve noted that in the metastatic setting, while a third of patients with MSI high cancers, even with drugs like pembrolizumab, and at the actual GI oncology conferences a couple of days ago, at ASCO, they also presented data with Ipi-Nivo, with updates. So there are striking differences, but there’s still a proportion of patients who don’t respond, and it’s anywhere from a third to at least, 20% if not more. We’re still trying to figure out why that case is, but when Dr. Chalabi and their group moved the treatment with their NICHE-! study to neoadjuvant setting. Nearly everybody responded. So I guess there is definitely some pretext to why neoadjuvant would be a good strategy. From a clinical trial standpoint and from a scientific standpoint, neo adjuvant — they call like them as the window of opportunity, meaning that you could still do whatever you’re trying to do, but get a quick readout as opposed to doing calls with hundreds of patients, I think, with novel clinical trial designs and how things are evolving, this is something that is being challenged, that we need trials that take years to mature, that take hundreds of patients & effort to realize that something is not working. With novel precision medicine based focused design, and in this case, the Precision Medicine being the setting itself, you can probably get away with smaller numbers, especially if the difference is significant.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 7:58
You don’t need huge trials to tease out those minor differences depending on the therapy you’re dealing with. So that was one reason why we thought that neoadjuvant would be a great fit. But the other parallel update that has happened in the last couple of years while patients with the so called cold tumors, or mismatch repair proficient tumors or microsatellite stable tumors, all meaning the same, which is the fair majority, 95% in the metastatic setting, and anywhere from 80 to 90% in the non metastatic setting are the MSS cancers that unfortunately don’t respond to immunotherapy. In the last few years, we’ve seen this regimen called the Bot Bal, or Botensilimab, combined with Balstilimab showing the first hint of a promise of novel immunotherapy that works in patients with cold tumors. One interesting finding that shaped the change in the trial moving forward is they noticed that folks who had active liver metastases, and the definition of active liver metastases was that, it’s not like you could never have had liver metastases. It’s just that at the time when you enroll in the study, they had to be resected, ablated, removed, or radiated at least six months ago, because the first 17 are patients that they treated, the ones who were benefiting the most were the ones who didn’t have liver metastases at the time.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 9:28
So moving forward the phase II study, and then the randomized phase II that has been completed third quarter of last year, just eagerly awaiting readout, there was a huge proportion of patients who did not have liver metastases at the time have benefited. So that’s how this regimen came to note in terms of patients with colorectal cancer. So keeping these two big advances in mind with the neoadjuvant paradigm shift, and then this regimen Bot/Bal, we had proposed as an investigator initiated trial to Agenus, the company who makes this drug–how about if we could consider the same combination, but in the neoadjuvant setting. We also looked at designing this in terms of as a parallel to the NICHE study that was published in Nature Medicine. Also there’s been an update to that presentation at ASCO, with over 29 patients treated with the immunotherapy that is approved for MSI high in melanoma, the ipilimumab or nivolumab, or ipi- nivo for short. So the idea was to compare and contrast how would this combination Bot/Bal fare in the setting of mismatch repair proficient and deficient tumors in the neoadjuvant setting, we designed it to kind of keep safety in mind.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 10:56
Its the last thing you want to do is in a person who can get colon cancer surgery tomorrow, next week, curative intent, is to jeopardize the surgery. Because we cannot cure patients with colon cancer for the most part, without surgery and or chemotherapy for the ones who need it, who are high risk. So the main objective of our trial was safety. So one of the things that we wanted to make sure was any surgery that got delayed would be considered a negative and the study would have to be shut down if two or more patients in the 12 patients that we wanted to treat would lead to a delay or cancelation of their surgery. So even a delay beyond 12 weeks was considered as what we call in our scientific world, like a dose limiting toxicity or something that would want us to stop the trial prematurely. So that was the main goal. And of course, we wanted to make sure that surgery happens safely as well, so any kind of serious adverse events or toxicity happening in the perioperative period even up to 90 days or 100 days after surgery, because immutherapy is a like a vaccine, it stays in your system.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 12:00
So could it even impact somebody’s clinical care beyond the first few months was the main end point, and so we really find combed any kind of side effects that were attributed to treatment and or any side effects period, that happened during the build up to the surgery as well as in the post operative period. But at the same time, we, of course, wanted to see the efficacy question as well. And we on purpose, had MSI high cancer patients as well, because if immunotherapy is already known to work there in the subset that have mismatched efficient tumors, we should have proof that it’s working in those patients as well. But more so, the interest and focus was on the cold tumors, which is mismatch proficient tumors. And at the time when we were designing the study, I would say anything more than a couple of patients responding would have been still promising for further investigation, because pretty much the bar has been close to zero in the metastatic setting and some hint of signal in the early stage setting. So any kind of responses for us would have been considered promising.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 13:13
Just to give you an idea of the dose, you know, the actual doses that have been studied have been the up to 150 milligrams of bot, which is a multi immune activator. Some folks, while can argue that this is the next generation, or the second generation, CTLA-4 antibody, with the mechanisms that we were able to find in our trial, as well as some of the correlative work. It’s not simplistically, just another ipilimumab. It is different, which is why even the toxicity that we are seeing is different, and also the efficacy that we’re seeing is different in also in parallels in other cold tumors like sarcoma and other tumor types. The fact that this is working is is very promising. So we only chose half of the recommended dose, or the lowest possible dose that we thought would be effective, and also just one dose of it, as opposed to ongoing immunotherapy, which is every six weeks, up to four times in some of the studies. So just to kind of give you an idea, this was the lowest possible dose that one could have thought of or conceived to be given in this study. As shown here in this cartoon as well these are kind of like don’t eat any signals or signals that prompt the immune cells to stay away from the cancer that some of these immune checkpoint blockade as the name checkpoint suggests is to kind of break those interactions so that the immune cells are able to recognize, expand and activate, and also try to kill the cancer. But there are other mechanisms that are it seems like there are some immune cells that are the good immune cells that are killing the cancer. But then there are some immune cells that can dampen the response, these are Tregs or bad immune cells. So it seems like it’s not as simple as just activating your immune system, but kind of the diversity that’s expanded is of value to note. And then which of the cells are expanded more than the other, the ratio of it in terms of circuitry, is important to recognize.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 15:22
So jumping onto the results, and the waterfall plot, where things hanging down is a good sign, and every single line is a patient and their response, which was actually the surgical response, meaning how much of the cancer was alive or dead when the pathologist looked under the microscope. Just to kind of give you an idea, I mean, this was also a learning experience for me as well. The pathologist do look under the microscope, and they have a surgical sample, but they don’t necessarily look at every single looking corner of the specimen. They, of course, examine the lymph nodes, and they examine how much tumor is left. But in general, not every single section of a huge specimen is looked at. But in this particular trial, our surgical pathologist, Dr Erica song is kind of worked hand in hand as a co- PI on the study, and also one of the senior author on our paper. Is also important, because without the pathologist, and of course, it goes without saying, without the colorectal surgeons who see these patients, this trial would not have seen the light of day. And so these are in some ways conservative numbers, because even in some cases where there were just a couple of cells floating around in a dead mucin pool, like this person and MSI high on the farthest right, who had a 98% responsepretty much the whole entire ginormous tumor was all dead, but just a small cluster of cells were present. So we made sure that we reported all of this so that we, in any way, the last thing you want to do is overestimate something and lead to a wrong signal. So these are, in fact, conservative numbers. But it’s hard to fake no cancer being present at all, or the cancer disappearing. And what was very fascinating as an experience, and very rewarding as an experience for us was, the it was a subjectivity, and the adjectives that our pathology colleagues started describing at some of these tumor board meetings, where every week here at Cornell, on every Thursday night, we review every single patient’s case, every new patient gets discussed, and that’s true for all academic and community centers as well. It’s good practice to be making decisions as a team, but then that’s also a meeting where we look into the microscope together as to what did the pathologist find? How aggressive was the tumor? What did it look like? What was the mutation testing? And also in patients who got any chemotherapy or immunotherapy, what was the pattern response? Did you see immune cells around the cancer? How much of the cancer was alive or dead? But the way they were describing from the very first patient that got this as a treatment was what did the patient get? What did you give the patient? And we’ve never seen immune response like this much, or the exuberant nature of the response, or the striking area of immune cells, or tons of inflammation and necrosis, meaning dying of the cancer cells. There were things that even the first two patients that were the cold tumors that had over 90% and 85% kill, the patients here that are on the third and fourth that prompted us to write a whole publication that was in the Oncogene journal. And we can share the links afterwards, and it’s available online, free to read because it has some striking images that we had pre and post, even just the first two patients. We wanted to get the word out, because for things to work and also to work as quickly, remember, these patients could have gotten surgery as early as three weeks from starting the treatment. That’s very important to recognize that if you can have just three weeks of a treatment causing this much kill of the cancer, that is unprecedented in many ways. In fact, a lot of patients as early as 21 days had surgery.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 19:32
We wanted to keep this trial pragmatic and practical meaning that right now in the United States, a patient like I said, with colon cancer is often seen by the surgeon first, and with the surgery team as well as the patient and caregiver alike, the immediate plan is to get the tumor out of your body as soon as possible. Now again, I would do the same if this was me or my family member, but at the same time. It’s good to realize that this didn’t start this week or last week, this month or this year. Some of the polyp to adenoma to carcinoma sequence can take three to five years to develop. That’s why, if somebody has a colonoscopy that’s clean, the next one is not due to, like, five years or so. So that’s because we know that this is how things develop. But we still have to remember there’s the psychosocial piece. So the surgery happening ASAP on the calendar whenever the surgeon can get an operating date, which could be tomorrow, it could be next week. So most patients, if not all of them, actually already came with a surgery date in hand, and we’re told that I’m getting my surgery on February 4. The surgeon asked me to do the pre op testing and the COVID testing, and I’m also here to talk to you, because I hear you have a trial. So keep that in mind we wanted to keep it as pragmatic as possible, so that all we were asking patients is you’re getting a surgery on February 4, a couple of weeks away from now. We have this immunotherapy that is not yet proven or tested in the neoadjuvant setting, but may have value, especially for those with advanced cancers, with chemo and surgery, may or may not even cure all of them, is to consider this trial. So we were only pushing out surgery by a week or so at the most, so that was something that was acceptable to all the patients that the trial was offered. So it also shows the interest in the patient and caregivers as well who participated in the study, and the trust that they showed to consider something which is not necessarily the norm.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 19:48
And like I said, as the trial progressed, was also very fascinating was patients and their caregivers, also the surgeons were themselves asking, can we postpone the surgery by another couple of weeks? Because maybe we can get more more shrinkage and kill all the cancer? So that’s how you might see, I’ll show you in the poster as well, that there were patients who had surgery a little later. Wasn’t because of any side effects or anything. In a positive way it was because the signal was getting more profound as we waited even a few days longer, that prompted the surgeons and the teams taking care of the patient on a week by week basis to maybe purposely allow for things to be delayed some.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 22:24
As shown here in dark green, are the MSS, or cold tumors. You can see from cancers entirely disappearing. The one of the first patients who is a 100% is somebody who had so much bulky tumor that even one of my colleagues who saw me the next day, who where the patient was starting the trial, was a little apprehensive about a person who was having some symptoms and bulky tumor to consider a trial that you know potentially may or may not work. So that patient’s symptoms and pain and things improving, and then the cancer being down to nothing it was very rewarding. The second patient was a 100% is somebody who actually had rectal cancer. So it’s important that while this trial and NICHE-1 looked at colon cancer, and a lot of the mismatch deficient studies from Dr. Cercek from Sloan and other teams have looked at Dostarlimab in rectal cancer where, of course, living with a permanent ostomy and can be a life altering experience from a quality of life perspective. So we did allow rectal cancers to enroll as well, as long as there was a plan for surgery as next and no chemotherapy or radiation. Because, of course, the ones who are candidates for chemotherapy and radiation, maybe in the future, in different trials, but for the context of this trial high rectal cancers or rectal cancer, where there’s a plan for surgery and no chemotherapy or radiation, are pretty much like colon cancer. So they were allowed to enroll.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 23:47
So we had one, mismatch deficient MSI high rectal cancer that had a 100% response. The second, mismatch repair proficient MSS rectal cancer had a very low rectal cancer, it would have been something called an ultra low LAR, something that could have risked an ostomy as well, that the type of surgery that was done had changed and ended up in a complete response, as well. We had an 85% and also we had a 10% response. And also, as we understood some of the micro metastatic disease in the pattern response, just trying to give you an idea, as shown here in the cartoon on the right hand side, we also noticed that what was striking was even if the cancer was present, it was kind of at the luminal or the tip of the colon. So if you can imagine this cancer reaching through the walls of the colon and the lymph node that’s involving, typically when we’re killing the cancer with chemotherapy or radiation, even if it’s eradicating let’s say approximately 90% of the cancer here is dead when it’s dead and scattered in different parts, and there could be cells floating around that are not bigger than we’ve seen, because we never really fail locally. For the most part, things are getting so much better with surgery and radiation, with sophisticated software and stuff. It’s more so the question of systemic recurrence or the cells kind of being present in the soil, just like grass with pollen or grass with weed, or in terms of things spreading elsewhere. But with immunotherapy, the responses that we see, we call it like inside out, versus like root up or kind of like serosa to mucosa, meaning, even if there was cancer, the immune cells, like a wave, were destroying them in a way where, kind of like the trash was just at the door for pickup. So even if there was leftover cancer, 75% alive, 90% alive, as long as it was in the specimen that is already out of the patient’s body in the trashcan honestly, from my standpoint, it’s great to have more kill, but at the same time, as long as we didn’t leave any cancer cells behind, that’s more important, because for MSS cold tumors, they’ll get their surgery anyways. It’s not like we’re planning to avoid surgery here, but the fact that you can eradicate micrometastatic disease, that was something very fascinating and novel, which was part of the like I said, this paper is available online on Oncogene, and also some cool immunofluorescent analyzes looking at immune cells that we did with this company called Rarecyte Inc, which required very minimal tissue to be sent to them. But you can see pre and post shown here in this golden is the cancer itself and around the golden cancer is the immune cells, different kinds. CD4, CD8, good cells, bad cells. Foxp3 it’s like a swarm of bees that you can see between pre and post, just a few weeks apart. The swarm of bees around the cancer is such exuberant increase, and even within the same patient, parts of the body that had some cancer left behind, versus part of the body that had more cancer, you could see the activity of immune cells like a busy office versus an office after 5pm as you could see, the differences between the type of immune cells, how active they were pre and post. So it was something that was very striking.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 27:24
While arbitrarily, you can argue that for major response, anything less than 50% is considered maybe not a success, and anything that 10% or less is considered “a failure”. I would argue, if even for the 0% and 10% since we saw some inflammation, and if we eradicated the micrometastatic disease, and the person still had surgery and everything is removed with the goal being cure, then even these might be not necessarily failures, in my opinion. So I would say that every single case has been a valuable insight since even the patients were at 50% 25%, when we checked their cancer cells or DNA after surgery with a blood draw to see if there was any leftover cancer, in any of these patients at more than 30 time points over six months, none of them had a recurrence. So the fact that we have such a strong black and white signal kind of speaks to the mechanism of action here, and also our understanding, a lot of these crude measures of response were invented back in the day with the esophagus cancer getting chemotherapy/radiation. So these numbers may need to be revised. In fact, a new study published in lung cancer, for example, question some of these arbitrary cut offs. Who said 90% is the cut off or 50% is good? We kind of use the real world where we come up with these arbitrary numbers of six months or three months or 50% is good, or the glass half full or half empty. But they actually showed that it’s a continuous measure that every 10% increase, or as a continuous variable, the more shrinkage you were getting that was equating to the being cancer free odds years down the line. So this is kind of changing the understanding, so to speak, of what we understand with with what’s happening in these patients.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 29:18
And so the study, by the way, is expanded based on these results. Iwanted to kind of highlight some of the key conclusions first, and then I’ll show some details regarding the poster as well. So we found it to be a safe and active regimen. Again, going back to the safety that we didn’t discuss yet, there was only one person, and again, that’s the same person who had the 100% response who had diarrhea, that’s from inflammation of the colon called colitis, that can be managed proactively with what we call steroid sparing drugs, or as the name suggests, you don’t need to use steroids to hamper the immune system or dampen the immune system. And ifrecognized early can allow the side effects to be nipped in the bud. That patient had the diarrhea on a Friday. It’s always the Friday afternoon when you hear about these events, and he still was able to get surgery the following Thursday, so the surgery was not delayed. And in fact, that’s the same person who also had the 100% response. So if you talk to some of these immunologists and oncologists who’ve been treating and have had a lot of experience with immunotherapy of the years, of course, we don’t want you to have severe side effects, but even in the days of melanoma, back in the day, having some rash or having some diarrhea or having some thyroid inflammation, it was one of those things that patients, caregivers and oncologists were looking for, and there would be more worried if there was none of it, because how do you know? There’s no direct of knowing if somebody’s immune system is activated, not activated, some of these side effects, symptoms, what they were going by and not just this particular regimen. Across the board, having any immune adverse events is very different than coming off of the trial let’s say if you had a serious adverse event for chemotherapy or target therapy, where as soon as you stop the treatment, pretty much the cancer is going to do what it was doing before. With immunotherapy, it is very different. I’ve had patients with vaccines or different kinds of immunotherapy that didn’t even get more than one dose and had to be taken off because of whatever adverse events. It’s the tale of patients who are alive and alive years out where the word cure is being used, that is happening even in the patients who there’s no specific number of doses, in my opinion, and no specific duration that you need to get immunotherapy as long as it’s working, it’s a it’s a gift that keeps giving.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 31:43
And because of the down staging we saw and the responses we saw in MSI high, the goal that we’re going to ask in the next set of patients is, and that was also something that we actually changed last minute again, because we also heard from our surgeons that in a good way that they were not inclined to operate on the next patient who was MSI high who got immunotherapy, because they never find cancer, and often everything responds so briskly, just like a marshmallow melting, that sometimes it’s actually it’s harder for them to operate because there’s a lot of scar tissue and so much robust infiltration from an immune standpoint. In fact, even at the discussion section at the ASCO, somebody asked about strictures developing. And we’ve had some similar experiences as well with just even pembrolizumab used in advanced setting, where the surgery was only done, because in a good way, there was so much response that actually there was a narrowing that had developed as an outcome of that. So maybe in those cases, we have less reliance on surgery and no surgery at all, or give that decision to the patient and caregivers and the surgeon. If they wanted to go for surgery and everything was dead, that will still be a success. If they didn’t want to go for surgery and just had no cancer worsening, that should still be considered a success. So we’ll allow for that as a composite or as an option, to give and empower the patient, so to speak, and the caregiver to make that decision. And then for the ones who are going for surgery, we’ll look at how much of it is dead as the key outcome variable. But going back to the MSS or cold tumor story, if we were able to get this much shrinkage with just three to four weeks of therapy, the idea is what would happen if we let the immunotherapy brew longer?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 33:25
We have some idea from the NICHE-3 study that was recently presented from Dr. Chalabi and colleagues, where there were deeper responses with the immunotherapy, nivo, with LAG-3. And while some folks were discussing if LAG-3 is the one that’s causing this, I think the big difference between that and NICHE-1 is also the fact that they use the monthly four week dosing of NIVO, so the average time of surgery was longer. So that just the fact that immunotherapy was allowed to simplistically bloom for longer, in my opinion, that’s what led to more responses. So we’re going to formally investigate without changing the doses of the Bot, just one dose still and keeping safety in mind, we’re going to allow for patients to have double the duration of the same regimen in MSS moving forward, and compare and contrast the results with the results what we have here.

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 34:18
So with that let me just quickly, just show a little bit of the the poster as well, which had some additional data that is available online. But one of the things that we found, as shown here in the poster is shown here in the red are the patients who had CT DNA positivity, who through different platforms, again, this was commercially available tests, robust, deep analysis in-house that we’re doing with some of the scientists here, which had more insights, but none of the patients in the post op setting that have been tested, some tested as much as four times on both plasma only assays, as well as tumor informed assays, have remained negative to date. And if you look at the mutations, for the next 12 patients that might be seen in any cancer center, this is a mix of anybody and everybody. We had a patient who was HER2 positive, KRAS mutant, KRAS wild type, P53 mutant, Wnt mutations, MSI high. We had young folks were germline Lynch syndrome. We had older folks who had the somatic MSI high, from as young as 26 years of age to as old as 78. We only had four Caucasians in our trial, which is quite the opposite of the story of all the trials that are conducted in the United States, where sometimes, even in hundreds of patients, you barely find one African American enrolled in the trial. That’s important for immune therapy. That’s not just about equity and diversity, but also there isdifferent types of HLA and immune features that distinguish us apart. Again, not just race, even males, females, we had six of each. Same thing, for example, we saw was, there were five people, four out of five, all young females who had this thing called early immune activation, where they had fevers as high as like, 102 103, 101 but no signs of infection. And the symptoms of the flu, like symptoms that go along with it, that again, with just some proactive Tylenol or Alleve or naproxen. If necessary, in some patients, just the low dose, 20 milligrams of prednisone, just for a couple of days to kind of nip it in the bud, was something that overcame that. Again, goes to show that there are biological differences in your immune system as well, that have to be kept in mind from, male female biology, as well as different races. So we had Southeast Asians, we had African Americans, we had Hispanic Mexicans, we had Middle Eastern we also had Caucasian. So we hadpeople mix of older, younger. So in a good way, there’s no signal to differentiate who is the one who had more response and where the one who is this fast. Because we had folks older, whichever race, who also had the response, and younger, whatever age. Because, of course, we are noting there’s also the difference in biology between young onset, colon versus older onset. And you know the plenary at ASCO-GI, for those of you who attended or heard was in fact, on the rise of cancers in young adults from Dr Kimmie Ng. That was the plenary. So it’s important to note that biology differences might be there between young and older onset. So the fact that we saw no differences so far on all the crude analysis that we’ve done to date, nothing from a CPS or PDL-1. In fact, just a few hours ago, I got results from all the patients before and after PDL-1. And in every single patient, the PDL one went through the roof so and a lot of these patients had the so called cold tumors with not much immune inflammation. So there’s not much to tell or tease apart. We’ll have more additional results from Rarecyte to go over. And as you can see in this line plot, you can see all kinds of immune cells, CD20, B cell, T cells, that went up. But then if you look at the cells that are, what we call immune proliferation, versus the ones that are that dampen the immune cells, the ratio of that was going down, we should explain some of the responses that we are seeing. So I know there are a lot of questions, so I think I’ll probably just stop there and we can maybe look at the questions, and then based on the questions, we can revisit things on the poster, or the talk.

Manju George 38:58
Okay, sounds good. Thank you very much, Dr Kasi, so shall we start from the top of the questions?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 39:05
Yeah, yeah.

Manju George 49:42
So the first question is, how do Bot/Bal findings apply to unresectable cases? And then I’ve heard on COLONTOWN that liver Mets disqualify one from receiving Bot/ Bal. Is this accurate?

Dr. Pashtoon Kasi 52:04
Yeah, it’s a great question. We saw a lot of CD20 cells going up as well. And I think in the comments it’s also mentioned that it was a tumor up stage as well. I think the issue, as I said, is as opposed to rectal cancer, where you can pretty much, it’s not 100%, but it’s really good, in terms of MRI pre op staging versus post op staging. Of course, there is discrepancy, but colon cancer is a mess. Colon cancer does not get MRIs. Colon cancer is diagnosed on CT scan, and if the lumen is collapsed, you may not even be able to assess how big the tumor is. And lymph nodes are always tricky to evaluate on a CT scan. So overall, the work from European colleagues show that colon cancers are under staged when it comes to the MSS variety, and overstaged for the MSI, because in the MSI, the lymph node may just be swollen because of your immune system activation. So they could be misinterpreted as stage III, and then post op, they may be stage II. So overall, we saw pretty much clearance for them. For the most part, I think the anybody who waited at least a month to get their surgery, we saw like that inside out where the lymph nodes were negative. There was no lymphovascular invasion, no perineural invasion. And now the tumors were beyond T1, T2 so I think that the N1, N2 patients, if they had waited a few weeks longer, which we will test in the upcoming cohort, we would have seen the activity go down.

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Sharif
MSI-H
Immunotherapy
Early-stage

In this DocTalk, Dr. Saima Sharif discusses early-stage MSI-H colon cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in December, 2023.

More Videos

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer
Dr. Sharif
2023
Defining early-onset CRC and improving outcomes for MSI-H rectal cancer
Dr. Cercek
2022
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

CtDNA screening tests and the CIRCULATE-US trial

CtDNA screening tests and the CIRCULATE-US trial

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Lieu
ctDNA
Early-stage
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Chris Lieu goes over CRC screening tests, including newer DNA-based tests that focus on CRC and multi-cancer early detection tests. In the second part of his talk, he covers the CIRCULATE-US trial for high-risk stage II and III colon cancer patients, which as of May 2022 is currently enrolling. This trial will address questions around the clinical utility of Minimal Residual Disease ctDNA testing. You can find more information about this trial in our Featured Clinical Trials Learning Center. Recorded with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George in May, 2022.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
01:19: Objectives
02:35: Colorectal Cancer 101
02:45: CRC Stats 101
03:04: Risk factors for CRC
04:14: Incidence of CRC
05:59: Take home point
06:45: CRC screening
07:03: ACS screening recommendations & tests
08:10: USPSTF screening guidelines
08:50: Take home point
09:38: Role of family history of polyps in screening
10:46: Predictors of CRC screening rates?
12:45: Tumor DNA-based screening approaches for CRC
14:01: Stool-based DNA testing
16:09: Intro to liquid biopsies
16:36: CtDNA: Properties & terms
17:40: CtDNA: Advantages
18:13: CtDNA: Disadvantages
19:27: Take home point
19:45: CEA vs ctDNA
20:44: CRC specific ctDNA testing
21:00: LUNAR-2 assay: The test, sensitivity & specificity
22:50 the 12,000 patient Guardant ECLIPSE trial
23:40: Multi-cancer Early Detection Tests, how do they work?
25:36: The 15,000 patient CCGA study
28:06: Take home point
29:01: Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) & ctDNA kinetics
31:15: Are findings of a ctDNA test actionable?
32:15: Adjuvant chemo for stage III colon cancer: Room for improvement
33:00: CIRCULATE-US
34:04: Is ctDNA in CRC ready for primetime?
34:55: Final thoughts
35:20: Q&A — Patient selection for Stage II Colon cancer
36:50: Q&A — Locations?
37:30: Q&A — How can patients talk to their care team about CIRCULATE US?
39:50: Q&A — How to enroll, info for patients interested.
40:50: Q&A — How to identify the different kinds of liquid biopsy or ctDNA tests? MRD vs others
42:13: Q&A — Trial for colon and rectal?
43:00: Q&A — What affects test sensitivity?
45:00 Q&A — Costs?

Manju George 0:00
Hello Everyone, Welcome to DocTalks. I’m Dr Manju George, the Scientific Director of PALTOWN, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN. I organize DocTalks, which are Zoom video talks from expert clinicians from the field on topics that are relevant to colorectal cancer patients and caregivers. Today, we have Dr. Christopher Lieu with us. He’s the Associate Director of Clinical Research and the Co- Director of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at the Colorado Cancer Center. He’s also the Vice Chair of the NCI Colon Task Force. Very excited to have you with us, Dr. Lieu, and he’s going to tell us about CtDNA tests for cancer screening and about the CIRCULATE-US trial. Welcome.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 0:43
Thanks so much, Dr. George, and thank you so much for the opportunity to talk to you all today about circulating tumor DNA and an upcoming trial, or newly opened trial called CIRCULATE-US, where we’re trying to utilize this new technology to change the way we treat earlier stage colorectal cancer. So thanks for taking the time. These are my disclosures: I do want to mention that there is a contracting agreement between Natera and my institution, University of Colorado, and in regards to Natera, just mainly because they’re one of the companies that produce CtDNA assays.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 1:17
All right, so what are we going to talk about over the next 30 minutes? We’re going to go back. I know that you have already had great talks from Dr. Cohen and Dr. Kopetz in regards to circulating tumor DNA, and we’re going to build on that, but we’re going to take a little bit of a step back. I’m sure you’ve talked about circulating tumor DNA, or heard of it in terms of earlier stage, or even the utilization of this type of technology in later stage colorectal cancer. But what about screening and primary prevention of colorectal cancer? What we mean by that is essentially anybody who hasn’t ever been diagnosed with colorectal cancer, we want to prevent those cases. So where can blood based tests really make a difference? We’re going to talk about screening just in general initially, and we’re going to talk about screening rates within the United States, but we’re going to start then to talk about where CtDNA may be appropriate in primary prevention of any cancer. Of course, this includes colorectal cancer, and of course we want to follow up with a discussion about what CIRCULATE-US is in regards to the utilization of CtDNA for stage III colon cancer.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 2:24
So this is going to be a big background that everybody already knows about colorectal cancer, because this group that’s listening to this talk is, – you guys are really the experts, but it is good to go back to the basics and talk about, what is the landscape of the epidemiology to risk factors and screening for colorectal cancer. We know that this is the third most common cancer diagnosed in the United States, and the estimates for the number of colorectal cancer cases in 2022 are over 100,000 new cases of colon cancer and over 40,000 new cases of rectal cancers. So this is a tremendously big problem, and certainly something that this group knows a lot about. And of course, the risk factors for colorectal cancer include risk factors for a lot of cancers, including being overweight or obese, having physical inactivity. A little bit different than a lot of other cancers is this idea that a diet high in red meats, processed meats, or cooking meats at very high temperatures, is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. And of course, these are some foods that a lot of people like a lot. So if you eat barbecue, it is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. This isn’t an announcement to say, “don’t eat barbecue”. But of course, it does mean that we certainly want to limit how many processed meats, or red meats or high cooked or high temperature meats we eat on a daily basis.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 3:41
Smoking and alcohol use are significant risk factors for a lot of different cancers, but of course, we always worry about genetic risk and hereditary genes impacting our ability to develop a colorectal cancer. But this still is a vast minority of cases of colorectal cancer that have a genetic component to it. Familial Adenomatous Polyposis is only 1% of the population. Lynch Syndrome, which is the most common inherited cancer risk profile for colorectal cancer, is only 2 to 4%. So these are some really interesting charts in regards to the incidence of colorectal cancer by age. And so when you look at the population that’s 55 and older, you can see these dramatic decreases in the incidence of colorectal cancer. And this really speaks to the power of primary prevention. This idea that if you screen for colorectal cancer, if you get a colonoscopy and remove polyps, you can really reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. That’s the big take home message. Of course, this group is also very familiar with the fact of the incidence in our younger population. So what you’re looking at here are graphs from 20 to 49 and you can see this inflection point in the 1980s and the 1990s where the rates of young onset colorectal cancer really started to increase, and then it increased year over year. Many of the people in this group and listening, and certainly the physicians and providers, would tell you that seeing young patients with colorectal cancer is really obviously still devastating, but it’s becoming, unfortunately, more common.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 5:13
Another way to look at this data is to look at colorectal cancer incidence rates by birth cohort, and you can again, see this inflection point that those born 1960 to 65 and then onwards. You can see this incidence increasing. Now I do have to tell you that early onset colorectal cancer is, of course, still rare, but if it increases by 2 or 3% every single year, then you can tell that even though it’s still a rare event, it’s becoming, unfortunately, more frequent. The United States is not the only country documenting an increase in early onset colorectal cancer, and those countries highlighted in red are showing similar trends. So this is a worldwide phenomenon, and not solely restricted to the United States. So the first take home point that everybody here already knows is that the incidence of colorectal cancer, particularly rectal cancer in young patients, is increasing. And this figure that you see here shows the duration of bleeding of having seen blood in the toilet before diagnosis, and this is stratified by the stage of diagnosis. When you look at older adults, the onset of bleeding to diagnosis of cancer is usually about 25 to 28 days. Here, if you look at some of the patients that were diagnosed with stage IV disease, on average, they were waiting over a year between the time that they had their initial symptoms and the time that they were actually diagnosed. And the longer that time takes, the more likely it is that you’re going to have advanced colorectal cancer, as opposed to an early stage colorectal cancer. So how do we prevent colorectal cancer? We don’t always talk a lot about screening as oncologists, because we’re usually taking care of patients after they’ve been diagnosed. But the problem with this is that there’s so many guidelines out there that it can be very confusing in terms of what patients should actually do. But of course, the American Cancer Society several years ago actually was very forward thinking and they actually decreased their age to start colorectal cancer screening from the age of 50 to 45 and I showed you the data as to why they wanted to change that. For people ages 76 to 85 the decision to be screened should be based on a lot of different factors, including how healthy that individual is. And the recommendation is that people over 85 should no longer get colorectal cancer screening.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 7:29
In terms of what tests that people offer, there’s stool-based tests and there’s visual tests. The stool-based tests include looking for blood in the stool, and that’s called a FIT Test or Fecal Immunochemical Test. We have this general fecal occult blood test, and there’s even a stool DNA test, which we’ll talk about. But of course, the gold standard is colonoscopy, because not only can you visually look at the colon, you can also remove polyps that may eventually turn into a cancer. There’s also CT imaging that’s available, and a flexible sigmoidoscopy looks at the first third of the colon, but cannot reach the last two thirds of the colon. The United States Preventative Services Task Force also has guidelines. This is our most conservative guideline group because their expectation for the level of evidence is quite high. So they really, really look at the data and say, well, the data doesn’t support certain screening, then they don’t recommend it. But if it does, then they do recommend it. Their Grade A recommendation is still for adults age 50 to 75, but the big update here in 2021 was a Grade B recommendation for 45 to 49 which means that these patients likely really should be screened. And, the more patients that get screened, the more we can prevent cancer. So your second take-home point: everybody should start screening at age 45 or 10 years before the youngest case in the immediate family. So if a first degree family member was diagnosed at the age of 40, then you would start screening at the age of 30. For patients 76 to 85: just consider the patient’s health. Then a colonoscopy is the gold standard, because it’s preventative and potentially treatable as well.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 9:10
Just a quick note from Dr. George that if you guys have any questions as the presentation comes in, feel free to put it into the chat. In all honesty, feel free to just unmute and ask the question even as I’m speaking. I’d love for this to be as interactive as possible. All right.

Manju George 9:26
Dr Lieu, then I have a question.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 9:28
Sure

Manju George 9:28
So my question is, what about polyps in the family, and how does that affect when you have to screen?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 9:36
So it really depends on the type of polyp. It’s such a great question, because I think that this really gets overlooked. If you have your typical tubular adenoma, and you get those things clipped off, and then the risk of having colorectal cancer, from a familial standpoint, is quite low. There are some times that patients have really, really advanced polyps, basically these polyps that have really high grade dysplasia and you can tell that in the next one or two years, you can tell that that patient is actually going to develop a colorectal cancer. And that’s why it’s actually so critically important to know that if you have a very advanced polyp that has significant malignant potential, we should treat those patients as if they already had a colon cancer. So, kind of complex. It’s certainly one of those things that when you get a colonoscopy, you get a polyp removed, it is good to ask, “Hey, was it a really benign polyp, or was this a really scary looking polyp?” And if it’s a scary looking polyp, then you go and tell your entire family. Great, great, great question!

Manju George 10:32
Okay, thank you.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 10:33
Absolutely! When you look at colorectal cancer screening across the country, there are disparities here. And actually, one of the questions I really wanted to ask the group was, well, what is the biggest predictor of getting colorectal cancer screening? You’ll find the answer as we go through the next several slides. But is it race and ethnicity? Is it income? Is it even geographic distribution? You can tell that your rate of colorectal cancer screening actually differs by by state. So if you’re living in Texas, for instance, then the rates are 62% which is obviously much lower than we want it to be. If you look into northeast: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, they have 75 to 76% screening rates. And the goal here is, obviously would be 100% but in all honesty, even having 80% would be really, really, tremendously impactful, and you can see that there’s a difference across the entire country. Well, what about sex? So if you’re male or female, does that make a difference? In here, there’s a little bit of a difference between females and males, but for the most part, it’s relatively the same, and has stayed that way over time. What about age? It does make sense that as you get older, there’s increased use of screening. Maybe there are some other health factors, you’re seeing your doctor more frequently. But it is interesting that as you go from 50 to 64 and then from 65 to 70, there is a pretty significant jump in terms of who’s getting screened. What about race and ethnicity? It’s interesting because I thought that the disparity gap here would be wider. It’s not quite as bad as I thought there would be, but there is a disparity gap, and so even when you look at our Native American population and our Asian population, interestingly, those are some of lower rates of screening compared to some of the other groups that you’re seeing here. But for the most part, there isn’t a huge difference. But what I’ll tell you seems to be the biggest discrepancy, or disparity between colorectal cancer screening and groups is actually your insurance status. And I think that that’s actually one of the big take home points, is that if you’re insured, you’re going to get screened, and if you’re uninsured or underinsured, only half of those patients are actually getting screened. So it does tell you that a lot of these things, you can actually have an impact on. But it is interesting data.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 12:43
All right. Well, what about tumor DNA-based screening approaches for colorectal cancer? We’re here to talk about circulating tumor DNA, and we’re going to talk about — I see the question from Annie about right versus left sided primaries and screening methods. So that’s such a great, great question, and I’m actually going to answer that a little bit later over the course of the talk, because for these tumor DNA-based screening tests, you want to make sure that you can detect cancer on both sides. To go back to visual screening methods like flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, if you have a left sided primary you should be able to see it on colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, but because flex sigmoidoscopy only really looks at 1/3 of the colon, flex sigmoidoscopy is definitely going to miss the other two thirds, particularly the right side of primaries, because you’re just not looking. But of course, with even with colonoscopy, sometimes you can miss the right side of primaries because either the prep is not very good or, you know, because it’s just harder to get there, and sometimes you can’t even get the scope all the way that far. So the right side is a little bit harder in terms of detecting cancer even with colonoscopy, but colonoscopy is still the best bet to find it.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 13:55
All right, I do want to talk about the first ever DNA test approved for use for screening, and that is a stool-based DNA test. So we talk about circulating tumor DNA, but here we’re actually talking about stool DNA. And what you’re looking at here are the performance metrics between the stool DNA test and fecal immunochemical test, which is basically looking for blood in the stool. You can see across stages the multitarget DNA test does seem better for early stage stage I and II cancer, and then performs about as well for stage III and IV. That question about left versus right is shown on the right side of this graph, and so proximal cancer would be the right side and distal cancer will be on the left side, and then you can kind of see that this test does perform better than than the FIT test. What’s interesting about this is that you can actually even detect pre-cancerous lesions with the stool DNA test. Obviously it’s not as effective in patients with polyps versus cancer. But you can tell that there’s a certain amount of pre-cancerous lesions that the stool DNA test is actually picking up. All right, and that gets us to circulating tumor DNA.

Manju George 15:11
Dr. Lieu? I have a question. So basically, they’re looking for cells from the polyps that are shed into the stool. Is that what they’re looking at?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 15:20
So they’re looking at DNA shed from the polyps into the stool. You imagine that over the course of time, these polyps have some genetic alterations. We know that there’s some early events even like KRAS and RAS and BRAF mutations are kind of earlier events in the development of cancer. But you can actually detect some altered DNA, even in polyps, and you certainly can detect it when there’s a full blown colorectal cancer. So it is interesting that in some of the altered DNA, you can see in some of these higher grade polyps, particularly there’s high grade dysplasia. They are shedding altered DNA that can be picked up by these tests, which is kind of cool, right?

Manju George 16:03
Okay, thank you.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 16:04
Absolutely. I know that you’ve had lectures from Dr. Cohen and Dr. Kopetz in regards to what gets leaked into the bloodstream. When you have a tumor that’s in place, sometimes tumors can shed actual tumor cells that you can pick up and even sequence. They release these things called exosomes into the bloodstream, but when tumors undergo cell lysis, or cell death, they do shed cell-free DNA into the bloodstream. Now the way I always describe this to my patients is that if you have somebody who’s pregnant and you draw their blood, obviously a majority of what you see in the mom’s blood is their own cell-free DNA. These are just cells, normal cells that are just turning over, and there’s release ofDNA into the bloodstream, which gets metabolized by your body fairly quickly. And so that represents a majority of the DNA that floats around in the bloodstream. But a portion of that would be fetal DNA. So you can actually sequence out the baby’s DNA, the DNA from the baby that’s being circulating around the mom, that also gets metabolized very, very quickly. Well, the same thing happens with tumors. So in our patients that have a tumor, a majority of the circulating tumor cell-free DNA in the body is that person’s normal DNA, but there’s a fraction of that that can be circulating tumor DNA, or CtDNA, which can then be sequenced and detected. And that’s really the basis of a lot of the technology that we’re looking at.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 17:39
And certainly, circulating DNA has its advantages. It’s stable – you can actually do mutational testing on it. There are established biomarkers, and it’s a short half life. Why is that important? It’s because a lot of times we get information from tissue, and that just represents one point in time. What’s circulating in the body is happening right at that moment.It gives you this real-time look of what’s happening in the body at that moment. And there’s the potential to do even further genomic characterization from the fragments of DNA that are released into the bloodstream. But of course, the disadvantages are the ones that are critically important, especially when we’re talking about screening for cancer. So not all tumors appear to shed detectable CtDNA. We worry, if a tumor is too small and is not releasing at least enough detectable circulating tumor DNA to capture in the blood, then you may, at that point, not be able to detect CtDNA, even though a patient does actually have cancer. The methodologies for analysis are really complex and expensive andthis idea that you have to filter out a lot of noise. And so part of this is that that noise can even be that as patients age, they develop these mutations that exist usually in their white cells, in their bloodstream, that are not harmful at all and are not precursors for cancer. They’re just these altered mutations that are benign. But we call this clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, or we call it CHIP for short. And that is that sometimes, as we age, we develop these mutations that exist in some of our cells that are completely benign and have nothing to do with cancer. Well, what if we detect those mutations and say, “Oh, you have cancer”. That would be obviously a real problem. So your take home point, only a fraction of cell-free DNA is circulating tumor DNA, but CtDNA may provide a real time look at what is happening in the body.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 19:33
And so there’s a couple of points as we kind of go into this idea of utilizing a test to detect cancer for the first time. One of the things that people ask is, “Well, why don’t we just use CEA?”. CEA is a blood test, and a protein that we look for in patients with colorectal cancer. And sometimes we can trend CEA to determine if a cancer is getting better or getting worse. But a CtDNA is better than CEA. What you’re looking at here is CtDNA versus CEA positivity in different stages of cancer. What I want to show you is that, particularly in earlier stage colorectal cancer, CtDNA definitely outperforms CEA. You can see that with CtDNA being on the left and CEA being on the right. You can see that CEA isnegative in a lot of patients that actually have cancer, whereas when you look at CtDNA for stage II and stage III colorectal cancer in particular, it’s almost never negative. Which means that when it’s positive, there’s definitely cancer there.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 20:41
I want to talk about two tests that are currently under investigation. One is colorectal cancer specific, and one is just looking for cancer, period. There are companies that are certainly developing both of these right now. So this is a multimodal circulating tumor DNA test looking at the primary detection of colorectal cancer. This is called a LUNAR-2 assay. Essentially what both of these tests are doing is they are looking at something called DNA methylation. And aberrant methylation signals in tumor, versus benign tissues, are different. Therefore, if you see this methylated DNA, you might be able to detect cancer earlier. And this is the test case: There were 434 cases, 271 controls, and this is the distribution by age in the controls and in colorectal cancer. Really what I want to show you is essentially this slide. What you’re seeing here is the overall sensitivity for this assay for patients with colorectal cancer or without colorectal cancer. You can tell that the overall sensitivity is unbelievably high: 91%. In the age cohort 45 to 84 which is traditionally the group that we’re looking at to detect colorectal cancer, it’s 90%. You’re seeing this high sensitivity across stages: stage I and II, stage III. Specificity is this idea that if you detect cancer and if the test is positive and you do have cancer, what is the accuracy there? And it’s 94%. So the key here is that again, across stages, it’s a really, really highly sensitive test. That’s what you want in any good screening test. Then this question of left sided versus right sided, it’s actually detecting cancers pretty well, maybe even slightly better on the right side versus the left side. And then transverse, there are not as many cases. There are only 17 cases of colorectal cancer, but it was 82% sensitive in that case. So a really, really interesting test, and I think this is really interesting early data. What they did was, – the company, Guardant – has a trial where they enrolled 12,750 patients to detect colorectal cancer, and we’re hoping to get data in the middle of this year. We’ll find out what the performance of this LUNAR-2 blood test is in the individuals that would normally be screened for colorectal cancer, and we’re going to see how good of a test this is. But can you imagine, drawing a blood test to screen for colorectal cancer, as opposed to potentially either putting in for a stool sample or undergoing a flexible sigmoidoscopy or a full on colonoscopy. So, very, very interesting, and we’ll see what the data is as they as they come out later this year.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 23:39
All right. So we talked about colorectal cancer. I just want to briefly touch on a multi-cancer early detection test, and this idea that can you utilize the same technology that we were just talking about, but look for all cancers. So imagine a blood test to be able to detect any cancer, and obviously, hopefully at an early stage. We had talked a little bit about this before, but this focus on DNA methylation. The idea is to have a low false positive rate, and we call that “high specificity”. And this idea that if you have a lot of coverage over these methylated regions, not only would you be able to detect cancer, but if different cancer sites have a unique methylation pattern, then you could at least tell somebody, “Well, you may have cancer. We have no idea where it’s coming from”. You might be able to point people towards, “Well, this fingerprint is more suggestive of lung cancer or pancreas cancer or colorectal cancer”. And that’s what this really complex figure basically shows you, is that you can draw somebody’s blood, look at the DNA methylation, and then what they’re really trying to figure out is that, is there a tissue specific methylation fingerprint where a specific methylation pattern might tell somebody, well, we really need to look for lung cancer or liver cancer or colorectal cancer. Because, you can imagine as a primary care provider, if you just get this test back that says, “Oh, we think you have cancer”. That’s not only incredibly anxiety inducing from the patient’s standpoint, it’s also incredibly anxiety inducing from the physician’s standpoint, because then, what do you do? Do you do a colonoscopy? Do you do a full body CT scan? So you can see some risk involved with these tests as well.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 25:29
This is a 15,000 participant study at 142 sites, and essentially what they had was a discovery group and a validation group. Essentially they wanted to see if the test could potentially work in a smaller group of patients, and then look at a bigger group of patients. These patients, some of them had cancer, some of them didn’t have cancer. What this test shows you is two take-home messages. Number one, the sensitivity is not great. It’s 51.5% which means in patients that had cancer, sometimes the test was positive, sometimes the test was negative. The other take home point is that it was a highly specific test, which means that in patients that didn’t have cancer, if the test was negative, they really didn’t have cancer. And there are very, very few false positives, in other words, where the test was positive, but they did not have cancer. So it meant that basically, the test was negative. There’s an incredibly high chance that they didn’t have cancer, and that’s obviously a good thing, but the sensitivity rates across diseases, range very, very differently. So you can clearly tell on the left side of this graph that this test is not a great test for prostate cancer. 11% sensitivity. That is definitely not ready for prime time.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 26:48
Well, what about colorectal cancer? Here the sensitivity is quite good, 82%. And then if you go into liver cancer or even carcinoma of unknown primary, there the sensitivity is 93 to 94% so it’s a big spread. So I would say the data is very promising towards the right side of this graph. Very not promising on the left side of this graph. And I think the main question that you have to ask is, well, will the technology get better? Can we get all of these sensitivity rates really, really high? So again, this is colorectal cancer sensitivity looking at stage I through stage IV. It’s clear that as you go higher in stage that the ability of this test to detect cancer goes up significantly. It always seems like these tests have a harder time with stage I, but the moment you get to stage II and III and IV, it gets actually quite good. I wanted to show you that detection of other GI malignancies. There’s really one take home message, and that is, for all these GI malignancies, it doesn’t do great for stage I, but as you get further into the stages, it does quite a good job of being able to pick up the detection of cancer. But again, the main question that you want to answer is, can this test save lives? We’ll say, additional studies are needed. I think you’re going to see this technology really change the way healthcare is delivered in the future. Right now the question is, is it ready for prime time? And I would say we don’t really know the answer to that quite yet. All right.

Manju George 28:19
Dr. Lieu, I had a question. So, Exact Sciences had a large trial. Is that more like a multi-cancer, or is it more like the Guardant Health?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 28:29
Yeah, so Colvera is really focused predominantly on CRC, although I know that they have data on other cancers as well. It’s interesting, because a lot of these tests that I’m showing you are casting this really, really wide net. Colvera is very interesting in the sense that they’re really looking at two genes. But they found that those two genes really do a great job of predicting for colorectal cancer. So, a little bit different, but dissimilar technology.

Manju George 28:54
Okay, thank you.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 28:55
Absolutely. I’ll just wrap up on this with the last five minutes, because, well, we talked about primary prevention of colorectal cancer. We talked about screening. Well, what about in patients that do have colorectal cancer? What happens to CtDNA in those patients, either postoperatively after surgery, but even during adjuvant chemotherapy? What happens to CtDNA? Does it go up? Does it go down? Does it become detectable? Does it become undetectable? We call that CtDNA kinetics. I just want to show you data from the Japanese group. This is their GALAXY study where they’re utilizing CtDNA, and it’s really interesting data. What this shows you is that postoperatively all the way to 12 weeks, if you’re negative and stay negative, you’re going to do great. That’s the black line. And what you’re looking at here is disease-free survival. Basically, nobody’s recurring, right? So that’s good. Interestingly, if you’re CtDNA positive post operatively, and then you turn negative, that’s almost as good as just being negative from the get-go. So that’s interesting. If you’re CtDNA positive postoperatively, you’re freaking out. – I’m worried, you’re worried. But if you turn negative, then your prognosis is quite good. If you’re negative and then turn positive, then there’s a pretty high rate of recurrence. And if you’re positive and stay positive, these are the patients that here, you’re looking at almost 70 to 80% of those patients recurring even within one year’s time.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 30:25
And I do want to show you that adjuvant chemotherapy can clear CtDNA. Interestingly, there is a 10% clearance rate by doing nothing and it makes you wonder what’s going on in those patients. Are those patients just clearing it due to their immune system? But interestingly, there is a significant rate of patients that even if they’re CtDNA positive, they receive adjuvant chemotherapy, they can clear it. We also know that if in patients that are CtDNA positive and they receive adjuvant chemotherapy, that they do better. And so that’s what you’re seeing in stage II, stage III and stage IV. That if there’s CtDNA postoperatively, and they receive chemotherapy, that their recurrence rates are significantly less. So the real question that everybody in this group wants to answer is, are the findings of this test, which is very, very cool, but is it actionable? Because that’s how we’re going to save lives.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 31:20
So what do we know so far? If CtDNA is positive, the recurrence risk is extremely high. That makes sense. If we detect tumor DNA in the bloodstream, it means cancer is there, and it means that at some point it’s going to show up on a CT scan. If CtDNA can be cleared, in other words, with adjuvant therapy, then disease-free survival is significantly improved, and we know that adjuvant chemotherapy can clear CtDNA. And we also know that if CtDNA is not detected, and it’s not detected over multiple time points, we also know that those patients are going to do incredibly well. This is the overall problem with stage III colorectal cancer, and that is that we’re treating 10 patients with with stage III colorectal cancer to save 2 to 3. I’m going to go through that. Why is that? In 10 patients that have stage III colorectal cancer, 5 of them are essentially cured with surgery. They never needed chemotherapy. In other words, they’re getting treatment even though they never needed treatment because they were cured. There are 2 or 3 that get treated with adjuvant chemotherapy who relapse anyway, which means that we didn’t help them with adjuvant chemotherapy. They were going to have recurrence whether we gave them chemotherapy or not. So we almost gave them chemotherapy needlessly. So essentially, we treat 10 patients to save 2 to 3, which means that we basically treat 7 to 8 patients needlessly with chemotherapy, either because they’re going to be cured or because they’re going to recur regardless.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 32:45
The idea is, maybe CT DNA can tell us who we don’t need to treat, and maybe we can tell with CtDNA who needs to be treated even more aggressively. I want to highlight this study, because this study is now open to enrollment and it’s going to be open up across the entirety of the United States. Essentially the way this trial is designed is that if you have stage III colon cancer and you have no CtDNA detected post operatively, you are then randomized to receive standard of care chemotherapy, which is what we normally do, or surveillance without chemotherapy, with serial CtDNA checks. If you’re negative CtDNA and stay negative, you never get chemotherapy. But if you’re negative, and then turn positive, at that point, you get chemotherapy. You get randomized to either receive standard of care chemotherapy or an escalation of chemotherapy, where we try a three-drug regimen versus a two-drug regimen. We do this because we’re worried that our patients have a poor prognosis when CtDNA is detected. Postoperatively, if you are CtDNA detected from the get-go, you undergo that randomization: either the standard of care chemo, or this triplet combination which represents an escalation of chemotherapy.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 34:00
And so the real question is, is CtDNA ready for prime time? I would say, in terms of identifying alterations in the bloodstream, that it is ready for prime time. But what we’re really trying to answer is, this bottom one. In terms of the detection of minimal residual disease, this presence of cancer, even though we can’t see it on a CT scan. The answer is possibly. Is it ready for prime time? It’s clear that CtDNA can detect cancer, but are the results actionable? And so the idea being, we know that this is an incredibly prognostic tool. It can tell us whether somebody’s going to recur or not, and we know that getting serial testing helps, but will it alter clinical practice? What happens if you get a positive result? Do you increase surveillance? We don’t know the answer to that. Will these tests save lives? So in other words, will a clinical trial like CIRCULATE-US end up showing good data in terms of well, can we use this test to determine who should and shouldn’t get chemotherapy? Can we use this test to determine who needs more chemotherapy? I’m hopeful that we’ll get the answer to that as time goes on.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 35:11
So I know that’s a lot of information in a short amount of time, but happy to – , I know Manju, you had to step aside for a little bit, but wanted to see if you guys had any questions? I see Julie has a question, can you talk a little bit little more about patient selection in CIRCULATE for stage II? Yep. So, I was trying to keep it a little bit simpler, but Julie’s asking a really, really great question, and that is the trial enrolls lower risk stage III, so if you don’t have a ton of lymph nodes involved. But there is this thing called high risk stage III, if the tumor is aggressively moving into other organs, or if a lot of lymph nodes are involved. There is also high risk stage II, where there are features of the tumor that are really concerning for the clinicians, and that’s usually related to how angry it looks under a microscope, or that tumor is actually invading into other organs. You can actually enroll into CIRCULATE if you get outside testing and that test is positive for CtDNA. You can actually enroll into the CtDNA-positive arm. We just want to give those patients the ability to have a chance of getting more aggressive chemotherapy. So if you’re high risk stage II colon cancer, or high risk stage III colon cancer, you don’t traditionally enroll into CIRCULATE, but if you have outside testing that you got as standard of care and you’re positive, then you can enroll. Annie’s asking, “The trial is only in this location in NRG?” Yes. So essentially my hope is that it’ll be open at more than 400 sites across the country. This is a collaborative effort between all the cooperative groups, which includes NRG, so this trial should, honestly, it should really be open within, my hope is 30 miles from every patient, but the reality of it is that it should be open in every state and in most, if not all, major cities.

Julie Clauer 37:13
So in terms of, you know, we have a lot of patients that come into COLONTOWN who would qualify for CIRCULATE-US, but they’re not necessarily looking at clinical trials at that point, because, they’re not high stage. They’re just recently diagnosed. Can you talk about what that conversation could be in terms of, how do they talk to their doctor, about, “Hey, I heard about this trial. What is it? Is it interesting?” Because the timing is, they might be post-surgery, but pre-adjuvant chemo, and so that’s good timing. So talk a little bit more about that, just because it seems like a quick turnaround has to happen, but it’s not necessarily people that are poised to have that quick conversation.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 37:58
So yeah, I think the timing of this is the most challenging part of the trial, and that is this idea that, if most people get seen by medical oncologists, usually a decent amount of weeks after their surgery. Capturing these patients early and getting CtDNA testing so it can inform which arm of this trial you go on is critically important. And so, I think where COLONTOWN and PALTOWN have been amazing is number one, it’s a resource. People are told they have colon cancer, and obviously, understandably, they’re freaking out. So I think the information that’s provided on COLONTOWN University is absolutely incredible. And then honestly, the earlier you can have the conversation, the better. So even before surgery, asking about it, “Is it available? Can I talk to somebody about it?” would be huge, because then everybody knows as soon as surgery is done, that they’re going to start thinking about the study, and they’ll know whether or not it’s even available at their site, or if there’s a practice closer, or within close proximity that they can enroll in. And so I think, honestly, COLONTOWN will find patients way before medical oncologists will. I think just getting the word out would be really cool, because I think, – but it’s a tough conversation, because people are just now getting introduced to this technology, and then they’re talking about clinical trials, and it’s a complex clinical trial. So having that information available and even people to talk to, I think, makes all the difference in the world for our patients but, can also help with a clinical trial accrual.

Julie Clauer 39:41
So let’s say it is available at their location. Would they connect then to the PI, or would they have CtDNA done before?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 39:54
Yeah, so I honestly would connect either through ClinicalTrials.gov, which would show the sites. Honestly, the easiest way to find clinical trials, and this is just in general, is to really ask the doctors in that area to see if, –because if they don’t have CIRCULATE open, I’m sure that they’ll actually know who does. But then also contacting the PI even like Dr. Dasari or myself, is always, I think, easy, because we’ll happily direct people to the right place.

Julie Clauer 40:26
Great, thanks.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 40:29
And then, can either a Signatera or Reveal test qualify for high risk stage II? It’ll need to be a Signatera test.

Julie Clauer 40:37
I have an unrelated question, but it drives me nuts. So now we have a lot of awesome tools that are using blood tests, like, you can get your biomarkers from a liquid biopsy, you have CtDNA to detect whether you have cancer, whether you have MRD, but it gets really confusing in terms of what to call these tests if you don’t call them by the brand name. So it’s like trying to explain to a patient like, “Oh, no that’s a liquid biopsy, but it’s a different liquid biopsy than the one…”. So is there an easy terminology of what to call these different tests? Because you say a CtDNA test, and some doctors still don’t necessarily differentiate between the different tests. So anything that can help on that end, because it gets super confusing.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 41:25
Absolutely, I think we’re all learning this new terminology, right? And I would say whenever you’re talking about: ‘is there cancer or not’, we should just call those MRD tests or minimal residual disease tests, that’s probably the easiest way. And if we’re looking for mutations in patients with stage IV cancer, we’re just basically looking for – we wouldn’t call those MRD tests or minimal residual disease tests, we would call them, I think maybe the easiest way to describe it is almost like a liquid biopsy to look for mutations. That’s essentially what you’re doing. And so I think the easiest way to kind of think about is, hey, if it’s trying to determine whether cancer is present or not, MRD is probably the way to go. And then the question, is this for rectal? Well, so CIRCULATE-US is only for colon cancer. Rectal cancer is a little bit tough, because a lot of times patients are getting a lot of therapy even before surgery. In fact, they’re getting almost all their adjuvant therapy before surgery. So this study is only for colon cancer, but these assays can be used for rectal cancer as well as colon cancer. And then Annie mentioned that for those over 70 with a high immunoscore. Yeah. The question is, is it only CtDNA? Could it be a combination of immunoscore and CtDNA? And I would love to see those collaborations in the future, because it may not just be “it’s one test to rule them all”. Maybe it’s a combination of different factors to help us make these determinations. But we’re starting with CtDNA, and then we’ll have to look how immunoscore may be added to this to help our decision making.

Julie Clauer 43:03
In terms of sensitivity. So we know this sensitivity is really high for for MRD tests, but there seems to be some things that tend to be more questionable, right? So lung mets, or maybe, the location of mets, if you’re stage IV. And I know we’re not necessarily talking about it in terms of stage IV, but a lot of patients are doing it or age or things like that. So is there any kind of good understanding of where, within colorectal cancer, how the sensitivity changes by either location of tumors or age or other facors?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 43:39
Yeah, we had talked about the age and the fact that sometimes patients have mutations that don’t have anything to do with cancer, so that can be a confounder that we have to be very careful about. But then, this idea that maybe we’re missing small lung metastases or peritoneal metastases, where they’re in the lining of the abdomen, I think that’s what keeps us up at night, right? And this idea that, are we going to miss patients that may benefit from chemotherapy? Are we just going to miss patients period that have cancer and we just can’t detect it? I think we mitigate some of that by having serial testing. Testing that’s done over the course of time. And so if patients are negative and they stay negative, that’s good. If they’re negative and they turn positive, that’s what we worry about. But I think that therein lies the risk. We want these tests to be perfect, but no test ever is. And so the question being, is it good enough? And that’s what we’re trying to answer. And then the testing is on site. I think for the study, they’ll get collected by the teams, and then they’ll be sent off, but oftentimes, these companies do offer at home blood draws.

Julie Clauer 43:42
It is very compelling, for patients from a trial perspective, and is in terms of cost. All those testing costs would be covered as part of the trial.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 45:00
That’s correct. Great question, Julie, that’s correct.

Manju George 45:04
This is about CHIP. So a test such as Signatera, you don’t have to worry about CHIP, right?

Dr. Christopher Lieu 45:11
Yeah, because it’s a personalized assay, and this idea of testing it, getting a personalized assay developed off of that really does help us with a sensitivity. It really does.

Manju George 45:26
Okay, thank you.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 45:28
Guys, thank you so much for taking the time. These are phenomenal questions and you guys are way more informed than even some of our practitioners. It is so fun to talk to you guys, and you guys are asking all the right questions, and really appreciate your interest in this, and hopefully patients will enroll, and they’ll find it interesting. The hope is that we’re going to change the way we treat stage III colon cancer. That is the hope. But at the least, at the very least, we’re going to learn a lot, and we’ll do better, and we’ll be better. So thank you guys. Really appreciate it.

Manju George 46:03
I want to say that we will have the CIRCULATE-US as a feature trial in COLONTOWN University, and our hope is that patients in COLONTOWN are, in general CRC caregivers and the patients in the public will be able to access it and find more information. The video of this talk will also be linked there, so we are hoping that this will be a great educational resource for everyone involved. Dr Lieu, thank you so much for your time, this is excellent.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 46:32
Thank you everybody. Have a wonderful day.

Manju George 46:35
Thanks everyone for attending. Take care.

Dr. Christopher Lieu 46:38
Bye bye.

Manju George 46:38
Bye

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Lieu
ctDNA
Early-stage
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Chris Lieu goes over CRC screening tests, including newer DNA-based tests that focus on CRC and multi-cancer early detection tests. In the second part of his talk, he covers the CIRCULATE-US trial for high-risk stage II and III colon cancer patients, which as of May 2022 is currently enrolling. This trial will address questions around the clinical utility of Minimal Residual Disease ctDNA testing. You can find more information about this trial in our Featured Clinical Trials Learning Center. Recorded with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George in May, 2022.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
01:19: Objectives
02:35: Colorectal Cancer 101
02:45: CRC Stats 101
03:04: Risk factors for CRC
04:14: Incidence of CRC
05:59: Take home point
06:45: CRC screening
07:03: ACS screening recommendations & tests
08:10: USPSTF screening guidelines
08:50: Take home point
09:38: Role of family history of polyps in screening
10:46: Predictors of CRC screening rates?
12:45: Tumor DNA-based screening approaches for CRC
14:01: Stool-based DNA testing
16:09: Intro to liquid biopsies
16:36: CtDNA: Properties & terms
17:40: CtDNA: Advantages
18:13: CtDNA: Disadvantages
19:27: Take home point
19:45: CEA vs ctDNA
20:44: CRC specific ctDNA testing
21:00: LUNAR-2 assay: The test, sensitivity & specificity
22:50 the 12,000 patient Guardant ECLIPSE trial
23:40: Multi-cancer Early Detection Tests, how do they work?
25:36: The 15,000 patient CCGA study
28:06: Take home point
29:01: Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) & ctDNA kinetics
31:15: Are findings of a ctDNA test actionable?
32:15: Adjuvant chemo for stage III colon cancer: Room for improvement
33:00: CIRCULATE-US
34:04: Is ctDNA in CRC ready for primetime?
34:55: Final thoughts
35:20: Q&A — Patient selection for Stage II Colon cancer
36:50: Q&A — Locations?
37:30: Q&A — How can patients talk to their care team about CIRCULATE US?
39:50: Q&A — How to enroll, info for patients interested.
40:50: Q&A — How to identify the different kinds of liquid biopsy or ctDNA tests? MRD vs others
42:13: Q&A — Trial for colon and rectal?
43:00: Q&A — What affects test sensitivity?
45:00 Q&A — Costs?

 

More Videos

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial
Dr. Tie
2022
CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial
Dr. Tie
2022
CtDNA testing for patients undergoing liver resection
Dr. Newhook
2022
CtDNA screening tests and the CIRCULATE-US trial
Dr. Lieu
2022
Circulating tumor DNA: a new frontier in colorectal cancer
Dr. Cohen
2021
New treatment strategies for MSS CRC
Dr. Parikh
2021
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Tie
ctDNA
Stage II
Trials

In this DocTalk recorded August 2022, Dr. Jeanne Tie from The Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia discusses her ctDNA DYNAMIC II trial with PALTOWN Scientific Director, Dr. Manju George.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
04:29: Minimal residual disease (MRD)
06:06: Duke’s staging
07:11: AJCC TNM staging
07:50: Adjuvant treatment for early-stage CRC & challenges
08:53: Things tried in stage II Colon cancer
11:00: Better risk stratification in stage II colon cancer
11:59: Clinical dilemma in stage II colon cancer
13:50: Other challenges
15:55: How to move the field forward?
16:30: Circulating tumor DNA, what is it?
18:12: CtDNA detects MRD
19:19: CtDNA dynamic reflects tumor burden in CRC
20:04: Post-op ctDNA detection and what it means
23:29: CtDNA dynamics — Real-time monitoring & its value
25:18: Serial ctDNA — What info does it provide about adjuvant chemo?
26:35: GALAXY trial results: Role of adjuvant chemo?
27:50: The DYNAMIC II trial
30:00: DYNAMIC II — CtDNA assay used
31:02: DYNAMIC II — Main study results
31:35: DYNAMIC II — Additional results
32:25: DYNAMIC II — Summary
35:00: DYNAMIC III — Design
36:19: Post-treatment ctDNA, role?
37:25: Trials for CtDNA positivity after Adj treatment
40:00: Q & A

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to Doc talks. I’m Dr Manju George the Scientific Director at PALTOWN Development Foundation, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN.Welcome to my first Doc Talk of 2026 and for those of you who are joining live, welcome. And I am so excited to have Dr Kopetz with us. And as many of you know, he’s no stranger to us in COLONTOWN. He’s an amazing oncologist, a very well known researcher , who designs these amazing colorectal cancer trials, and is a speaker at all the international and national conferences, and has received so many awards. And in between all of that, he finds time to engage with us, and for that, I’m so grateful. And he has many titles and honors, and I think to us, he’s a beloved oncologist who’s focusing on BRAF and KRAS mutated colorectal cancer. And so once again, I’m so thrilled to have Dr kopets with us to talk to us about the 2026 BREAKWATER updates. Welcome Dr Kopetz.

Dr. Kopetz 1:14
Yeah, thanks so much for such a delightful and kind introduction, and thanks for all that you do, and you really do such an amazing job of educating and advocating. And so we’re so grateful for community, for you as well. So delighted to be able to share some of the updates in BRAF.And I thought during this, I would take opportunity to kind of take a step back with a little bit of history, but then really talk about where we are. How are we thinking about this in 2026 so with that, I had to start with just the complexities that we’re dealing with. Don’t worry about interpreting all this. This is for the gurus in the field. There’s a Frank McCormick, he’s kind of considered one of the fathers of RAS and he’s kind of put together this pathway about all the complexities of how normal cells and then cancer cells signal. We kind of think about, and you may have heard in biomarker testing, kind of the key ways that colorectal cancer can acquire mutations. These can be through KRAS, NRAS mutations commonly, but also BRAF. And BRAF is a distinct entity. It’s probably the one that we were able to target first, but a lot of the lessons that we’re learning, and we’ll come back to this point that in BRAF are now being applied to KRAS G12C, and think in the future, G12D will be following right along in this path. So hopefully these wedges of targetable oncogenes will continue to grow.

Dr. Kopetz 3:05
Okay? I said BRAF was targetable. This now goes back for more than a decade where the kind of first inhibitors which some brilliant medicinal chemists figured out that you could actually target this specific mutation that’s present in BRAF. Now I’ll take a moment to say what we’re talking about is a BRAFV600 E, so it’s the most common mutation, but there are others. Now the others are a little more complex. Everything that we’ll be talking about in terms of targeting is really this most common V600E mutation. Others we’re not fully sure what to do with, because they’re so heterogeneous and complex. But the BRAF V600E, also common in melanoma, and some of the initial studies that kind of a classic one.

Dr. Kopetz 3:54
This is one of the first studies that we ran where we said, okay, let’s treat melanoma. Let’s treat colorectal the same and we got very different outcomes, and that kind of set us off down this path to try to figure out what is it that’s unique about colorectal? How do we better target that? So there’s really two main crux, right? We have to improve the shrinkage of the tumor. And then, importantly, really, really target the durability. And we’ll talk about that, about how can we keep the cancer, shrink it down, and keep it down for as long as possible? So a lot of the work has been trying to do both, and you’ll see progress has been made there. All right, so let me take a step back. If you were a medical student, maybe first or second month of medical school, you would get introduced this concept of homeostatic regulation and how it’s used in the body. But I think it’s a useful concept for us to understand, and it’s this idea that our bodies like to be in a certain condition and that they have feedback mechanisms to keep us in that that condition. And there’s the more critical the pathway is, the more critical that regulation is, the tighter the feedback is present. And it turns out that this growth factor pathway, we call it the MAP kinase pathway, it incorporates K RAS, NRAS, BRAF. Those are incredibly important for cell growth and healthy cell division, and so that the cells, especially the colon cells, have a lot of these mechanisms to keep that level of signaling just right. so this is homeostatic. And Walter Cannon really was the–and you can see how, just by virtue of the picture, how old this concept is, but we still see it.

Dr. Kopetz 5:58
So what does it mean? Well, when we are in normal physiology, you can think about your glucose levels, if you’re not a diabetic, about how tightly regulated that is, but even something simple, like your body temperature, right? So you go out and sit in the sun, your body temperature rises, your brain recognizes that. It then dilates your blood vessels and also induces sweating. And then the response is, your body’s temperature is restored, right? Very simple concept, but it’s this kind of regulation to say your body wants to keep its temperature in this really tight range, and it’s going to do everything it can to maintain that. So the same thing happens after targeting BRAF, right? So in a BRAF mutation growth signaling this tumor cell is has a level of signaling that it wants, and we can give an inhibitor of BRAF, but there are feedback mechanisms that this tumor uses to say, nope, nope. That’s too low. I want higher signaling in this growth pathway. And one of the things that does is it activates EGFR, and it turns out that that then reactivates the growth, and the signaling is restored from the concept of the cancer cell, right? So this is homeostasis from the perspective of a cancer cell.

Dr. Kopetz 7:29
Now, I know there’s a lot of aficionados out there, so if I were to do this and try to do this simplistic Frank McCormick figure, it would look like this, right? Where there’s this signaling cascade, where one protein, activates the next one, which activates the next one, and down at the bottom of that is growth, right? This is the signal that says cancer’s growing. So if we have the BRAF mutation now, green is kind of signaling, an activation that’s just pumping out signal– we inhibit BRAF, what happens? It gets shut down, right? So transiently, it does a good job, but what happens then is you get these feedback mechanisms that get de repressed. EGFR now gets turned on. It now signals around that inhibition. We’re still blocking BRAF, but there’s pathways to get around it, and the signaling is restored, right? So that’s why BRAF alone doesn’t work, because the tumor is adapting so quickly. Now, when you then now come in and block BRAF and EGFR together, that’s when you can shut down the system, right? It can no longer compensate. You block two key nodes and and that was the premise. So fast forward through a lot of clinical trials and work, the BEACON study was the first to really show this, that when you combine BRAF and EGFR, compared to a control arm, you can improve overall survival response rates in this setting, and this was in a later line population, where there’s improvements here from 5.9 to 9.3 months. So improvements, there’s a bit of a tail. This idea that a proportion of patients can really have a longer duration of that as well. And the overall the side effects that you can see here as well. So this was several years back, and resulted in approvals for the second and third line. But we want to do better, right? And so really trying to understand, well, how could we do that? What’s the path forward there?

Dr. Kopetz 9:47
So gonna take a step back to the lab, because I’m a physician scientist. So we tend to do something the lab, bring into the clinic, learn from the patients, bring it back into the lab, and kind of keep iterating. And so throughout all of this, we’re doing a lot of preclinical modeling of cancer. And so, how do we do this? Well, we use mice for this. And why mice? It’s kind of weird, right? Like, why do we use mice? Why don’t we use other areas or other model systems? So it turns out that we actually have a fair bit of similarity with mice, like 95% similarity to mice in our genetic code. A lot of the ways that the our systems work are very similar. And then there’s some practical advantages that we can house them in controlled environments. Can handle them, and they have kind of been used for decades, continue to be used for a lot of this testing, right? And so we’re really really, I think, thankful for the opportunity to learn as much as we can in these systems before we bring to patients, so we’re bringing better things forward.

Dr. Kopetz 11:04
So, you know, just want to advocate. This is kind of what what the mice look like. So we actually use these mice that don’t have any hair, so they’re called nude mice. So, and then a lot of times the tumors are kind of grown on the flanks of the mice, so we can put little calipers around it and kind of measure how things are are going and advancing. Now we take extraordinary care to provide a really good environment for the mice. We actually have veterinarians whose sole job is every day to check on the well being and health of the mice, and they get all sorts of like things to socialize together through all of this. And so just know that we’re trying to be really good stewards of this, and we don’t take this research lightly, but we know that it’s really important for our patients. Okay with that a bit of aside, because we like to show as researchers how can we do things right? And so one of the questions that we were asking is, how can we improve the targeted therapy, and we did an earlier study where we actually combined with the earlier generations BRAF and inhibitors with with irinotecan and we had patients that their disease responded. So we gave chemo, EGFR and BRAF inhibition, and not just BRAF and EGFR alone. And so the question was, okay, we had responders, and it was working, and we had some patients that were really generous, and they said we will be willing to do a biopsy so that you can take tissue out from my tumor and you can study it. And so we’re so thankful for the patient’s contribution to not only enrolling in research, but to support things like this. But what that allowed us to do is say, Okay, I’m going to take that piece of tumor, I’m going to take it back to the mice, just like you saw, and I’m going to grow that patient’s tumor on the flank of the mouse, and I’m going to propagate that tumor, so I can treat many different mice, and then I can treat that tumor with the targeted therapy alone, the chemotherapy alone, or the combination. And then ask the question like, if that model works, what was that the patient was responding to? They got three drugs. But did they need all three? Maybe you only needed two in this or our other one. And we were really intrigued. And I just showed three examples here, where you want to see things kind of going below the lines, the lower, the better, smaller the tumors here. And what we found was that the targeted therapy slowed growth. Chemo slowed growth, in two of the models, but you only really got regressions and things shrinking down when you did the combination. And so that was a really important finding for us. Now it turned out because I wanted to show all the data that one on the far right here. What that said is, you know what? The targeted therapy didn’t do anything. It was all chemotherapy doing the heavy lifting here, we would predict in this patient. And so we kind of expanded that out and looked at some really resistant tumors and showed that indeed, that when you combine this, we were using a full theory regimen, so irinotecan and 5FU, that you could really get these synergies and really suggesting that there is opportunities to improve outcomes and the durability through this. So that kind concept, as well as the idea to say, well, let’s try to get this into more patients sooner, really led to the idea of the BREAKWATER study.

Dr. Kopetz 15:06
And so what did we do? Well, designed this study, randomized 637, patients to a standard of care without targeted therapy at BRAF. Patients could still get BRAF and EGFR in second or third line because it was approved. But the idea is to start with standard chemotherapy in the control arm. Or EC, encorafenib, cetuximab and FOLFOX or EC alone as a kind of a third arm. And so we were trying to gather some data, like, do you need the chemotherapy there? And then we’re looking at progression free survival, response rate. Here’s the characteristics of the patients enrolled, and this really reflects a bit of what we see in kind of general practice here. So what do we see? So remember, we said we want to improve response rate and durability. So first thing we said is, let’s look at response rate. And indeed, if you look at the blue bar with the EC and FOLFOX now we had two thirds of patients approximately responding to the therapy, meaning the tumor shrank down by 50% or more, versus 37% with the standard of care therapy, a little more than a third. And that this was durable, and that was encouraging. So when we get a response and there was some increased durability, now one of the terms that we use to measure durability is progression free survival, as you’re likely aware. And so we looked at that progression free survival curve, what we saw was an improvement in progression free survival of seven to 12 months.

Dr. Kopetz 16:42
So what does that mean? I’m sure many of you are well versed in these curves, but I thought it was always worth to do a little bit of a primer about what this means. These are a measure of any time point along the way, the number of patients that are still receiving therapy and have not progressed. So we can look at this, and for example, we can see about it at six months time frame here, that 60% of patients were still on therapy and were free of progression. And over time, more patients progress, and you can see the curve coming down. And so by the time you get to 12 months here in the control arm, about only 30% of patients were no longer progressing. So we’ll say, Okay, that’s good. How do we describe the curves here? And so you’ll hear this term median, right? Well, what does that mean? Well, it means, really at that 50%, meaning half the patients progress before, half the patients progress after that time point. So the median here we use as our estimate. And you can see, you know, the median is a little over six months 7.1 exactly here in the control arm, but that median is closer to 12.8 months here in the in the experimental arm. Now we can use these numbers and now start to compare across different settings, BRAF has always been a tough or has not always felt to respond well to standard chemotherapy. FOLFOX, FOLFIRI alone, even with Bevacizumab, usually get like 6-7 months. Now, while the non BRAF colorectal cancer is usually around 10 months or, maybe 11 months. So this is really striking, because we’ve taken a tumor that had well worse than your average outcomes, and now with this regimen, now we have a median progression free survival that looks better than all the other tumor types, subtypes of colorectal cancer out there. So it’s a really big kind of chip. And I think, as we mentioned before, we also see this, this tail, and this gets a little noisy because we don’t have as long a follow up yet, but this idea of, this flattening here, and about a third of patients, even at two years, are kind of still ongoing, and that’s a much higher tail, as we say. So, the idea that there’s a subset of patients that we don’t fully understand why, but they get a really durable, prolonged outcome from this. So we need to know more. We need to make more people like that. So that’s one of our goals.

Dr. Kopetz 19:48
All right. Now we talked about, there’s a third arm, if you recall, right where encorafenib, cetuximab was used alone, no chemotherapy. And here’s the orange line for the encorafenib Cetuximab alone. So didn’t do better than the standard chemotherapy, but didn’t do worse either. So it is, it kind of is in that middle ground. The kind of interpretation of this is, you know what this is, typically the the EC alone is better tolerated than FOLFOX. If there’s a patient that is maybe not the best candidate for FOLFOX, can’t really tolerate it well, for whatever reason, there’s an option to at least do the EC alone, and that may be better than than other options for that unique case. But for most patients, we think that that is EC and FOLFOX should be there. Now, progression free survival is important, but remember I mentioned that well, the control arm could go on and they could get BRAF and EGFR right, and so is this just shifting when things are and if that’s the case, for what we really care about is, can patients live longer with this regimen?

Dr. Kopetz 21:08
And so that’s the overall survival– very similar. We use this median to say half of patients now, in this case, are living longer and half are living shorter than that estimate. But what we saw was that the standard of care about 15 months– what we expect on average, but that we’re able to double that number. So really, a doubling of overall survival is a really, a compelling number to see. And so now getting medium survivals that are much, much higher. What about that third arm? Kind of fell right in between. So, it’s not an unreasonable consideration to kind of start with that, but still not as good as the EC and FOLFOX alone.

Dr. Kopetz 21:59
Okay, thanks doc for showing all those complex slides. What does it really mean? So, here’s kind of that graphic summary, thanks to nano banana. I’ll say a little AI generated one. But what you can see here is that really, progression free survival, you’re reducing that risk of progression. And then that survival time is, in essence doubled, going from 15 to 30 months. Those are the kind of the key takeaways. Now, what about side effects here? Most frequent side effects are shown here, in this figure. And what we can see is that nausea, diarrhea, those kind of things that we normally think about with the chemotherapy, is about the same between these and that the real difference here is kind of in some of the BRAF specific toxicities. In this case, it’s looking at arthralgia and rash. So you can see that the combination of with encorafenib+ cetuximab can generate some rash. We use grading systems to grade one two, which means a more mild rash and arthralgia, and still impact quality of life. And so it’s something that we manage and work through with patients.

Dr. Kopetz 23:35
Now, one of the questions that’s come up is like, well, is this better than if we did really intense chemotherapy at the beginning. And so there are regimens where we put FOLFOX and combined with irinotecan and what we call the triplet regimen. And so this was just a bit of an aside to say that we looked at what patients could have gotten some of these more intense regimens, and then looked at some of the survival here. And the bottom line is that it didn’t matter in the control arm, if you use really intense chemotherapy that that really you got the best survival with the with the EC FOLFOX. Now we’ve been talking a lot about FOLFOX, and this is data from last year. So, but what about alternates? So we like our acronyms as we know and so FOLFOX, of course, is a 5FU oxaliplatin. Oxaliplatin is the neuropathy one. There’s the FOLFIRI, it is irinotecan and 5FU. And there are situations where patients, just may not be best served with FOLFOX. They may have had prior oxaliplatin exposure, may have had an early stage tumors, resected, got adjuvant FOLFOX, for example, and then the disease recurred later. Or maybe patients that have kind of diabetic neuropathy, for example, where they have other reasons for nerve damage. And then sometimes it’s just a lot of providers are looking at the side effect profile and just saying, you know, I just think FOLFIRI is a better choice in general to start with. And so all these things now to the credit of the sponsoring company for BREAKWATER they heard us when we said, we really want to have more options for our patients. And we want to generate data as well with with FOLFIRI. Right now, most companies, I would say don’t really do two studies to look at the same thing, but they heard us and and agreed to run this smaller study. So remember, before we’re looking at over 600, here we have like, 140 something patients.

Dr. Kopetz 26:02
And now this is just after the BREAKWATER finished enrolling. We then opened and enrolled this one. Endpoints, response, rate, side effects, very similar here. There was, interestingly less arthralgia and rash in this one, not sure I fully understand it, but it was that’s kind of what we saw there, but really low rates of grade three toxicities in general. So didn’t add much in terms of toxicity. Here again, we saw very similar, about two thirds of patients responding versus about 39% of the control arm there. So encouraging that there’s that much higher response rate, even with a FOLFIRI backbone. And overall survival, really early, we will have some updated data we’ll be sharing in Jun. But that this kind of really nice early separation of the curves that were similar in magnitude to what we saw before. So that’s great. It tells us FOLFOX and EC can be a backbone. FOLFIRI and EC can be a backbone.

Dr. Kopetz 27:15
So wanted to spend maybe the last few minutes and just talk a little philosophically, and that little more of the science here, right? So one of the questions is, wow, we’re doubling overall survival, not by bringing a new drug in, but by taking a drug that we would normally give in second and third line, and now combining it with our first line regimen. What gives? Yes, maybe it’s better, but why a doubling in overall survival? And, I shared some of that kind of concepts pre clinically, and I didn’t get into a lot of the deep science that led us to think that this could really work. But one way to really think about this is that when we give chemotherapy alone, and these are completely arbitrary numbers. We give chemotherapy alone, there may be 10 different ways that the tumor cells can develop resistance. When we give BRAF EGFR inhibition, again, maybe 10 different ways that resistance can develop, including acquisition of KRAS and NRAS secondary mutations, for example, which are really well described and and I didn’t present that data, but this idea that other mutations can develop that can reactivate the pathway. Now the concept, though, is that a new KRAS mutation is not going to make them resistant to FOLFIRI, right? And likewise, some of the resistance mechanisms to the chemotherapy may be blocked by BRAF and EGFR. And so it’s not that the cancer can’t find a way to develop resistance. Gosh, it almost always does, but we’re just making it much, much harder. So the idea is that the shared pathways of resistance are constrained, so that’s this lower level of number of mutation or resistance pathways that can occur. So by putting them together, you really make the tumor work hard to find some mechanism that will result in resistance to the chemo and resistance to the targeted therapy together.

Dr. Kopetz 29:25
Now it’s a great theory. Did we actually see any data about that? Like is what we have there? So I mentioned that, and we did a lot of work and published papers around different mechanisms of resistance to BRAF and EGFR when it’s given alone. These secondary mutations are kind of the key ones that we see. So what we did is presented some of the data on the CT DNA, so you can use circulating tumor DNA to explore the mechanisms of resistance there. And what we showed was that by month seven in the targeted therapy arms of the of the BREAKWATER study that EC alone, about 38% of patients already had these resistance mutations that were developed and evident. They developed KRAS variants, NRAS, MAP2K1, which is downstream, amplifications like MET or BRAF exon deletions, all these things that have been shown. But when we combine it with chemotherapy, now there’s no selective pressure, really, to generate that the chemo can keep the cancer from growing, even with those. And only 6% of patients at month 7 in the combination arm had that mechanism of resistance. And you can see, even at the end of study, after prolonged treatment, that we were seeing much lower rates of these secondary alterations. So we’re trying to and this is really where we are at the frontier of trying to understand this, is kind of the idea to say, how can we constrain the mechanisms of resistance. What are those two remaining shared mechanisms that are allowing the cancers to evade? We don’t think they’re genomic. They’re not acquiring second mutations, necessarily, that’s driving this, but there’s some tumor plasticity, state changes that are occurring. These are kind of the terms you’re hearing in oncology field now about what’s the plasticity of the tumor, like, how is it adapting to these different states? So stay tuned. But this is really where we’re working on it. We’re trying to nip these remaining things in the bud.

Dr. Kopetz 31:42
Okay, so adaptive resistance, you got your primer on homeostasis, right? There’ll be a test later on the homeostatic regulations, but this combination of BRAF and EGFR blunts that. It is a standard of care, but that the chemotherapy combinations have compelling biologic rationale, as well as the really now strong clinical data, doubling overall survival. And so that we do think that EC and FOLFOX, and I would say EC and FOLFIRI as well, are a new standard of care in the US and and I think this is even when you compare to the really intense chemotherapy there. The key for all of this is that in order to actually act early and take advantage of all this great biology, you got to know what your molecular subtype is, and so this is why one of the key things about this is molecular testing early. Don’t wait till second or third line of treatment to really start to act on the molecular subtype of your tumor. It’s really important for patients to understand their molecular subtype at diagnosis and act on it, if there’s ways to act on it, and so that’s really a challenge for us to make sure we’re communicating that to oncologists throughout the US and throughout the world. And I think increasingly we’re seeing that most, most providers now, are getting that molecular testing done and and making treatment decisions early. And just want to end by thanking the patients first and foremost. We are always trying to do better, and this is always bittersweet. When we see advances, because we see progress, but we also recognize how far we still have to go. And I just wanted to thank the the patients in the past who really participated wholeheartedly and in these, this clinical trials and the patients in the future that are still upcoming, and where we hope we’ll have better therapies to offer. So with that, thanks and happy to take some questions.

Manju George 33:57
Okay, thank you, Dr. Kopetz, that was an amazing presentation. As always, you take us through hard concepts, explaining them very simply. So thank you very much. So with questions, in COLONTOWN, people have posted some questions, and I had emailed you them, so maybe we can start with those, f you’re okay,

Dr. Kopetz 34:20
Sure, absolutely.

Manju George 34:22
Yeah. So the first question is, of all the patients on the different E plus C combinations, what’s the longest time in your experience someone has been on it? And the second part of it is, what do you think is the reason? Like, what have we learned?

Dr. Kopetz 34:39
Yeah, great question. I don’t know the answer yet about why. So we’ve had some patients that are now four years or so, on some of these combinations. The front line, chemo, plus a lot of times, what we’ll do is just continue the 5FU and encorafenib, cetuximab, and we’ve had patients on that two and a half years going on three so that really there is a subset of patients who can do really well with it. We don’t understand, we don’t know, if the tumor has some biology that’s called adaptive mutability, which is how the tumors change, in essence, they kind of turn themselves in and increase the rates of their secondary mutations, so that this is one of the ways the tumors can adapt. They start making more mutations. Each time they divide, they have more mutations. And the hope is they, imputing a lot of of intent to them, but the idea is that they, as they develop a lot more mutations they can find, stumble across other mechanisms of resistance. So there is some hint, maybe, that some of these really patients with really long duration don’t engage this adaptive mutability pathway, so their tumors don’t use this as a mechanism. But that’s I think, work that we still have to sort out.

Manju George 36:24
Okay, thank you. The next question is, what advice do you have for someone who was on FOLFOX plus E plus C and is now on maintenance 5FU plus E plus C. Is adding irinotecan to this at progression a good idea. If not, what else can they get?

Dr. Kopetz 36:44
Yeah, great question. So one point, not the question, is that when there’s this inclination, no one likes the pump, I get it, right? There is this inclination and maintenance to say, well, EC is working, what if we just stopped the pump as well as the oxaliplatin, right? And I really, I think that biology suggests that you need that 5FU, so I would say, try to maintain the 5FU now, the great question was, should we add more on to that? We just don’t know, to be frank, on this, I think, there is this sense that trying to put something into it before progression may not be the best approach, but we honestly just don’t have a good sense of this yet. I think we have tried it in some patients where you’ll start to see things kind of creep up. It’s not that full resistance is developed to 5FU and encorafenib Cetuximab, we either add the oxaliplatin in, or, if there’s neuropathy, add in the irinotecan, alternatively, so and that can work. The question is, is that better than than using irinitecan later, we just don’t know.

Manju George 38:07
For someone with a sustained response to E plus C and E plus C plus FOLFOX who is now progressing, what’s the best option next? Yeah, similar question.

Dr. Kopetz 38:19
Yeah. Great question. So there’s a few approaches there. There are studies to say, remember we talked about that these tumors are really dependent on this MAP kinase pathway. So there one approach is to say, well, let’s double down on this inhibition. And there is another protein downstream called ERK and so there’s a next generation ERK inhibitor. We tried ERK once, but that was really intermittent ERK inhibition, and that didn’t work. For the officianados, that had been tried once, but we think there maybe a better inhibitor. So there’s a study ongoing to double down on that pathway inhibition. The other is, we talked a little bit about the plasticity and the state changes. And so we have a study through the ETCTN or the NCI, federal government sponsored study, where we’re trying to use an epigenetic modifier. It’s called a BET inhibitor, but the idea is that it really inhibit some of these state changes. And so that’s a study that’s enrolling right now. And then there are studies to kind of ask questions about, well, what if you go and you do something else altogether, right? Like, if you haven’t gotten FOLFIRI, maybe you go and get FOLFIRI, you give it a break from EC. And what we see is that a lot of times, the tumors will rewire in order to evade the FOLFIRI. Sometimes they’ll shift back into a state that becomes EC sensitive. And so this idea to say, can you do what we call a re challenge, which is do something separate from MAP kinase targeting, and then come back and hit again with the MAP kinase. We see benefits with that with the EGFR inhibitors. This is a RAS RAF, wild type tumors that you can inhibit EGFR and then take a break and then come back and do EGFR alone. So that’s another strategy, but I think there still is a lot more that we can do.

Manju George 40:26
Okay, okay, thank you. So I think that brings us to the next question where people have asked, Can the BEACON and BREAKWATER regimens be reused? And then, if yes, like with EGFR inhibitor, we say, like, four to six months. Do you have any idea what’s the break that people would need?

Dr. Kopetz 40:48
Yeah, we don’t, to be frank, I think, we would typically check Ct DNA to make sure there’s no secondary mutations. All those are uncommon after BREAKWATER. But can be seen. So just make sure those have gone away. Because if you can still see a KRAS mutation present on CT DNA, then maybe it’s not long enough. You give it a little more time. But you’re right, we kind of think about, four month or so time away. It may be enough to have the tumor resensitize,

Manju George 41:25
okay, okay. And then the next question is, for people who miss the first line option of breakwater, what’s your advice on using this in second line or third line?

Dr. Kopetz 41:36
Yeah, great question. I think it does give us confidence that, bringing EC in combination with chemotherapy may be better than EC alone. So the the SWOG study that I showed the one with then looked at and second or third line looked at, in essence, BRAF, EGFR, with irinotecan, and that showed activity. And so I think if, for example, you got FOLFOX alone, I think there’s a rationale to say that you could do an EC, irinotecan, or EC FOLFIRI, in a second line setting. In that sense, all we have are these kind of cross trial comparisons to suggest, so in it, and we don’t have that, what we say level one, randomized data, but that tends to be my practice in those situations.

Manju George 42:35
Okay, thank you so much. The next question is, what’s the status of the E plus C Nivo trial. Do you have some updates?

Dr. Kopetz 42:44
Yes, so we’re going to be so that is a small kind of phase II study that is trying to build on the EC nivo single arm data there. The hope is there’s a subset of patients that may be deriving benefits from the nivo. So that one we should be able to present at ASCO this year. So we’ll have some of that that it was small the control arm was I think less than 30 patients there, but we’ll have that data.

Manju George 43:22
Okay, okay, thank you. So the next is, what is in line next, in terms of new regimens, now that breakwater is done, where’s the field heading? What’s cooking in your lab?

Dr. Kopetz 43:36
Yeah. So we’re really interested in the these epigenetic state, inhibition, I think the the idea to say that, that there’s a subset of cells that are kind of are adapting in some way to evade the those therapies. And if we can understand what those dynamic changes are, then we can potentially, kind of come in with inhibition and and look at different ways, the different vulnerabilities that may come up now. These can take the form of, potentially, thinking about ways to combine it initially, like, how do you extend duration when combination? Or can you understand these paths of resistance and then, kind of treat upon progression? So we’re trying to explore both ways.

Manju George 44:39
Okay, okay, thank you. So I’m done with those questions, and then here we have some Q and A questions. So those who are listening, if you have more questions, please add them in there. So the first question is, if there is a chemo for life patient, is there an argument to be made to do standard of care followed by E plus C or vice versa to prolong longevity rather than use the efficacy of both treatments together?

Dr. Kopetz 45:06
Yeah, no, that’s a, I mean, that is, that’s the angst, and I think that’s what surprises us about BREAKWATER. So the control arm, even if we limit to those patients who and the majority of patients, had access to BRAF, EGFR and second line in the control. So this was that study, in essence, the say standard of care chemo, followed by EC. How do patients live longer than when you put it all together? And the short answer is, it really matters, when you put them all together, that there’s a true synergy. It’s not kind of a one plus one equals two, but you’re getting much more. We think it’s because of and I know this looks like this question was like part way through my lecture, so hopefully I answered it with the kind of explanation of the how we’re trying to constrain the mechanisms of resistance. But I really think the data suggests that in this case, at least, it’s not about stringing it out, but really about bringing the best regimen together at the beginning.

Manju George 46:09
Okay, thank you. The next question is for can this drug regimen be used for patients without a BRAF mutation?

Dr. Kopetz 46:19
Yeah, great question that the short answer is, not, at the moment, there are, there been kind of different areas to explore in this space to kind of think through how you know what BRAF can do. One little bit of an aside is that there has been a recognition that the skin toxicity of the BRAF and EGFR combination is much less than you’d expect with EGFR alone. So the Cetuximab rash kind of acneform, kind of face trunk, but when we give the BRAF inhibitor, it’s actually less. They actually have much less, patients still have some skin rash, but it is substantially less so one of the areas has been like, Okay, well, could you use BRAF inhibitor to try to modulate some of that toxicity? But now, instead of taking it as encorafenib, as a pill trying to reduce that toxicity, there’s a company that’s actually made an essence of BRAF inhibitor skin cream. And so the idea is, could you just put a BRAF inhibitor skin cream on and treat the EGFR rash there? So that’s one kind of creative way where the BRAF inhibitors are being utilized there and I think in some extent, these drugs were engineered to be more potent against the mutated form of the protein. So that mutation is not there, it makes it a little harder to kind of utilize it, although I still think there’s some creative opportunities there, we just have not fully explored.

Manju George 48:07
okay, but in general, like to as a line of treatment for somebody without a BRAF mutation. You don’t generally recommend it?

Dr. Kopetz 48:16
yes, I should just be clear with that. No, we shouldn’t use it. There’s really no data about using encorafenib for anything but that BRAF V 600 E. Now the corollaries we also, I talked a little bit at the beginning about what about other BRAF mutations? And I think the data really has not.. we’ve tried for some of them. There’s different classes as we talk about them and characterize them, we tried these in different ones, and they have not provided benefits. So I know it’s tempting, because sometimes you say, Well, my report says a BRAF mutation, but they behave very differently than the V600E.

Manju George 48:51
Okay, thank you, for those who can only tolerate E plus C alone. Can it be continued once progression occurs, will it slow growth? Does it have to be stopped once progression occurs?

Dr. Kopetz 49:06
Yeah, so good question. We don’t fully understand all the dynamics of it. What we can say is that when we’re doing EC alone, that the mechanisms of resistance tend to be genomic, and kind of a get acquired pretty robustly. So we do think in those settings that kind of stopping the EC is beneficial, and that doesn’t necessarily result in any kind of progression or that continuing, it doesn’t result in more inhibition of the growth.

Manju George 49:46
Okay, so the next couple of questions, like in the BREAKWATER trial, do you have some data on whether people were able to get to surgery to resectability?

Dr. Kopetz 49:57
Right, yeah. So we do. There is some data suggesting, perhaps, that more patients may be able to get to surgery. We just, we need to kind of get that data little cleaner. It’s been a complex area, because there were several years because of the biology of BRAF and the outcomes, surgeons had just said, I’m not going to take a patient with a BRAF mutation to surgery. I just don’t think that it’s kind of beneficial in that regard. I think now the field has shifted a little bit, and people are more willing to do that, and we are seeing that, we are seeing anecdotally even, that some patients that go to the or for resection of their metastatic disease can have complete pathologic responses, which is just really extreme, great response to the treatment.

Manju George 50:53
Okay, okay. And then the next thing is do you have some breakdown of the people on BREAKWATER like, what kind of mets? I think you had the table, right? How many people had peritoneal Mets, and how did they respond?

Dr. Kopetz 51:09
Yeah, we don’t have breakdown by sites. It’s a great question. And so that we don’t have that data to say, you know that this group of patients perform better than the others. We do have in some of our waterfall plots, we can try to tease that out by eye, and then there are kind of we call forest plots, that have looked at that. The numbers are just small, but it looks like, in general, they’re performing better, but we don’t have, like, a breakout of response rate, for example, by peritoneal mets in particular.

Manju George 51:50
Okay, so next question is, what trial options are available for BRAF patients after BREAKWATER, you mentioned the BET inhibitor, right? Like, what else?

Dr. Kopetz 52:02
ERK and the rechallenge are the main ones that are out there right now being explored.

Manju George 52:08
Okay, the next question is, can you speak to any BRAF targeted therapies that are in the pipeline that are expected soon?

Dr. Kopetz 52:15
Yeah, so there’s work on on degraders. So degraders are one space. The idea is, instead of inhibiting it, can you grab the BRAF and just pull it and destroy it? So just kind of chew it up. Now, the cell remakes it, so you have to keep grabbing the BRAF and destroying it. So that’s kind of one of them. There’s been other areas to try to improve upon them. Kind of these next generation BRAF inhibitors that has some characteristics about how the different BRAF and CRAF and ARAF all kind of linked together. So these other family members, it’s B, because there’s an A, B and C, by the way, in case you want to know where the B came from. So there’s these other family members in the RAF family, how they interact. So there are some smart chemists out there trying to sort that out. We don’t necessarily know that they’re going to be better than what we have right now.

Manju George 53:19
Okay, okay. And then what about immunotherapy combinations? Is anything new being tested?

Dr. Kopetz 53:26
Yes, we have the PD-1. And that was done when we are looking back in the preclinical models. And again, always trying to learn everything we can and thinking about other strategies. The intriguing thing is that it really looks like that more than PD-1 is CTLA-4 that is the one that’s driving a lot of benefit, which is a kind of a common theme we’re seeing in in colorectal in general. That PD-1 is okay, but CTLA-4, really, is kind of what induces a bit of greater responses. So there is some intriguing data to say if we had the SWOG study that the encorafenib, cetux nivo study, would a CTLA-4 be better than that. So, these are things that we just have to try to prioritize the questions that we ask and try to understand if that’s going to be better. The other is vaccines. So there are some. There’s been a lot of push. Elicio, for example, the company that’s been generating K RAS vaccines for pancreatic cancer and then for colon and many others have been whispering in their ear to say, think about BRAF. Think about BRAF. So that’s on their radar. And so the hope is that maybe there could be some vaccine strategies to to kind of follow since we are talking about a single point mutation. So it’s kind of well aligned for that.

Manju George 55:06
OK. Next question is, are we close to a CAR-T, options for BRAF V600E?

Dr. Kopetz 55:15
Great question. We don’t see anything. I don’t know I say close, I mean, I think CAR- T’s have just been tough to try to find the cells that can get into the tumor there. So, so I would say we still have a little bit of way to go to even get CAR- T’s, in general, in solid tumors working. But we’re starting to see some, some progress. The difficulty is that you know when you have a single point mutation, that it’s getting expressed by a TCR, and these are really more like TCR TIL therapies where you’re trying to target the BRAF itself is that you’re looking for just a single mutation, and sometimes it’s hard for the immune system to tease out, like, really small differences in there. A lot of the CAR- T options are targeting completely separate proteins that are on the surface of the tumors. So the CAR-T’s are coming in and binding something on the surface that may not be related to V600E, so maybe that some of the CAR- T therapies being developed can be applied to BRAF population, but may not be BRAF specific.

Manju George 56:33
Okay, okay. And then in the BREAKWATER results, do you see a difference in patients who are younger with the BRAF mutation versus the older, right sided tumors. Is there a difference in outcomes?

Dr. Kopetz 56:47
Yeah, so that we have some data on early onset BRAF that says that they are deriving benefit from the therapy just as well as patients that are average age of onset. So I think the you know some subtle differences, but that there are some distinctions. Now, BRAF, in general, tends to be associated with MSI high in later onset BRAF, so I guess the caveat is that early onset less likely to have a BRAF associated with MSI high more likely to be MSS, but within the MSS BRAF, they tend to do the same as average age.

Manju George 57:36
Okay, okay. And then this is my other favorite question. So, with the pharmacogenomics testing, because we are combining E plus C with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Do you think that there can be more tailoring of the chemo part of the regimen so that people can stay on it longer? Are there any efforts to do that?

Dr. Kopetz 58:01
So, you know, we’re still, I would say, nascent in our understanding of pharmacogenomics. We know for irinotecan, UGT1A1, there’s some older data about the utility of that to kind of tailor things that really is more relevant for higher dose. irinotecan, kind of saturates a lot of the metabolism transporters, for the doses that we’re giving every two weeks, it’s kind of less relevant. So there has been some discussion like, Well, gosh, could you increase the dose of irinotecan in a patient that may have just the right pharmacogenomic subtype there, and I think that there hasn’t been a lot of work being done on kind of dose escalating the chemotherapy based on pharmacogenomics. But certainly a possibility. The problem is we don’t yet have pharmacogenomics for why the patients are responding to BRAF, for example, so we don’t have good answers there.

Manju George 59:03
Okay, okay, I think we are at time. And thank you so much. This was an incredibly informative talk, and I hope we can have you back when you have new trials and give a talk.

Dr. Kopetz 59:18
Yeah, always a delight.

Manju George 59:20
Okay, thank you. Thanks to everyone who was able to join. And as I said before, a recording of the video will be posted in COLONTOWN University in about two weeks. Thanks. Thank you, everyone. Thanks. Bye. Dr. Kopetz, bye.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Tie
ctDNA
Stage II
Trials

In this DocTalk recorded August 2022, Dr. Jeanne Tie from The Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia discusses her ctDNA DYNAMIC II trial with PALTOWN Scientific Director, Dr. Manju George.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
04:29: Minimal residual disease (MRD)
06:06: Duke’s staging
07:11: AJCC TNM staging
07:50: Adjuvant treatment for early-stage CRC & challenges
08:53: Things tried in stage II Colon cancer
11:00: Better risk stratification in stage II colon cancer
11:59: Clinical dilemma in stage II colon cancer
13:50: Other challenges
15:55: How to move the field forward?
16:30: Circulating tumor DNA, what is it?
18:12: CtDNA detects MRD
19:19: CtDNA dynamic reflects tumor burden in CRC
20:04: Post-op ctDNA detection and what it means
23:29: CtDNA dynamics — Real-time monitoring & its value
25:18: Serial ctDNA — What info does it provide about adjuvant chemo?
26:35: GALAXY trial results: Role of adjuvant chemo?
27:50: The DYNAMIC II trial
30:00: DYNAMIC II — CtDNA assay used
31:02: DYNAMIC II — Main study results
31:35: DYNAMIC II — Additional results
32:25: DYNAMIC II — Summary
35:00: DYNAMIC III — Design
36:19: Post-treatment ctDNA, role?
37:25: Trials for CtDNA positivity after Adj treatment
40:00: Q & A

More Videos

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial
Dr. Tie
2022
CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial
Dr. Tie
2022
CtDNA testing for patients undergoing liver resection
Dr. Newhook
2022
CtDNA screening tests and the CIRCULATE-US trial
Dr. Lieu
2022
Circulating tumor DNA: a new frontier in colorectal cancer
Dr. Cohen
2021
New treatment strategies for MSS CRC
Dr. Parikh
2021
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Defining early-onset CRC and improving outcomes for MSI-H rectal cancer

Defining early-onset CRC and improving outcomes for MSI-H rectal cancer

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Cercek
MSI-H
Rectal
Early-onset
Early-stage
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Andrea Cercek, Founding Co-Director of the Center for Young Onset CRC & GI Cancers at MSKCC, discusses defining disease and improving outcomes for patients with MSI-H rectal cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in February, 2022.

Table of contents: 

1:35: Definition of YO-CRC and incidence rates
2:48: Questions around the causes for the rise in CRC
3:37: Racial disparities in YO-CRC
4:38: Rising rates of rectal cancer
5:00: Role of the gut microbiome, other factors
8:44: Global rise in YO-CRC
9:26: Overview of the MSKCC Center for YO-CRC
14:10: What is YO-CRC, is it different from regular CRC?
17:14: Cancer biology of YO-CRC tumors?
20:00: All GI cancer rates are increasing & new center for YO CRC & GI cancers
24:19: Dr. Cercek’s trial for MSI-H Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC)
26:35: Treatment consequences in LARC
28:15: MSI-H LARC
30:50: Trial schema
31:51: Study design & response criteria
33:57: Summary of patient responses — AMAZING results!
35:55: Case details of a sample patient from the trial with images of tumor shrinkage & disappearance
38:26: Conclusions
40:15: Q&A — Details about the trial, duration of Dostarlimab, info on responses of mucinous MSI-H tumor
47:17: Q&A — How does Dostarlimab compare with Pembro? Comments on response to PD-1 inhibitors in early stage MSI-H Rectal cancer, prevalence of LS in MSI-H rectal cancer patients, how this trial compares to the Ipi+Nivo+RT trial for LARC, comments on why 6m of Dostarlimab was chosen, clinical response/side effects in these patients to Dostalrlimab, ctDNA and other analysis

Manju George 00:00
Welcome to DocTalks. I’m really excited to have Dr. Andrea Cercek with us today. I am Manju George, the Scientific Director at Paltown, the nonprofit that supports Colontown. So a little bit about Dr. Cercek. She is an oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and she finished her MD from New York Medical College. She is also the Section Head of colorectal cancer and Co-Director of The Center for Young Onset Colorectal Cancer and Gastrointestinal Cancers. And her research focus is on the development of new therapies for patients, including molecular based therapies to improve outcomes for patients with metastatic disease. So we’re really excited to have you here with us. And thank you.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 00:44
Thank you so much for having me. It’s my pleasure to be here. So I thought I would talk a little bit about our Young Onset Colorectal Cancer Program and what we’ve done with our center, with our program, and then how we’re specifically looking at trials and trying to improve outcomes in all of our patients, including patients with early stage or locally advanced disease, in an effort to not only improve their outcome, but also minimize the morbidity of treatment that we have currently available, specifically in rectal cancer. I hope to leave a lot of time at the end for questions, but also feel free to interrupt me at any time. So the incidence of young onset or early onset colorectal cancer is rising. And that’s defined at the moment still as cancer under the age of 50. And that’s in sharp contrast to what we’re seeing in patients over the age of 50, which we attribute the improvement or the decrease in incidence in people over 50 to screening colonoscopies. But in people under the age of 50, it’s rising so much so and it has been this steady rise, that by the end of this decade, we actually project with computer modeling that the incidence is going to nearly double and that 1 in 10 of all patients with colon cancer and 1 in 4, so 25% of all patients with rectal cancer are going to be under the age of 50. And this rise is actually leading to a shift and a decrease in general in the incidence of colon cancer in the United States, and really what has prompted the current screening guidelines to be lowered to age 45. So although that’s good, I’ll kind of show you why we’re still not there yet, although that is a significant improvement still. We’re catching patients much earlier, with the decrease at 45. But the highest rise is actually in the 20 to 30 year olds who we really are not screening. So the cause is unknown. So there’s a lot of culprits. We’ve been eating more processed foods, junk food, foods high in sugar, we’re much more sedentary, as a group in general, sitting in our cars, sitting on our couches, staring at our devices, and then we’re ingesting different things than we used to. And this change, I should say, has really been going on since the mid 1990s. And so what are the some of the things? There’s definitely more drugs that have been available. Antibiotics are a primary suspect, because we’re definitely taking much more antibiotics than we used to decades ago.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 03:30
And then just a quick mention of racial disparities. So definitely within the United States, young onset colorectal cancer is rising in all groups, but it remains much more prevalent specifically in African Americans, high incidence in Asian Pacific Islanders, very high incidences in Hispanics, as well as in American Indians and Alaskan Natives. The shift is actually interesting in that, although in general, African Americans or blacks have a higher incidence of colon cancer and higher mortality, which has been reported and known for many years, and that applies to people under the age of 50, as well as people over the age of 50 for unknown reasons. Early onset colon cancer specifically is rising much more in non-Hispanic whites and has a higher tendency to be left sided, whereas cancer in blacks, including early onset cancer, tends to be more right sided. And this reason for location is really unknown. But there has been this general shift so that the mortality actually in non-Hispanic whites, in rectal cancer in particular, is approaching that of African Americans, which is something new that we’re not used to seeing. And obviously, all of this remains a huge problem in the United States, as well as globally, actually. So one of the main suspects, of course, is the microbiome and that’s the bacterial flora, sort of the normal gut microenvironment that exists in our intestinal tract that is meant to be part of our intestinal tract, we believe has shifted. We don’t have the evidence for this yet. There’s a lot of active research going on in this area. But we know that there are these good bacteria and bad bacteria. And when we have too much of the bad bacteria, actually, in mice models, we can see that they lead to these bad bacteria, what are called proinflammatory that cause more inflammation, can actually lead to polyp formation and lead to cancer formation. So that’s why this is one of the main suspects. And we know with things that we’re ingesting, foods, but especially things like medications, and especially things like antibiotics, we shift that flora. And we’ve seen lots of evidence of that, outside of this young onset population. And now we’re taking a deeper dive into our younger patients.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 05:56
This is just a nice graphic that I like that sort of looks at our bacteria that might influence the intestinal lining. What affects it in our diet? What are we ingesting from our environment? What have we been exposed to? Are we overweight? Are we exercising? Are we not exercising? Are we very sedentary. There has been data published that watching too much TV has been associated early onset colon cancer, not being outdoors enough, not having enough Vitamin D? Is there some sort of genetic or epigenetic predisposition that we don’t know about that might be leading to this? And then, of course, as I mentioned, exposure to certain medications and how that plays into this whole process of early onset colon cancer.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 05:56
And when we when we think about colon cancer and how it forms, if we believe that it develops the same way that we’re used to seeing in our 60, and 70 year olds, then this might start in really young people, like actually in infancy. So there might be some changes, perhaps that the mother while pregnant is ingesting some antibiotics, perhaps due to the way that the baby’s actually born. vaginal delivery exposes the infant to necessary bacteria that without that bacteria, if they’re born by C-section, maybe that offsets that. And maybe it’s even as early on as infancy or early childhood. So it’s a very sort of challenging area in terms of risk factor assessment, because it is quite extensive and also dates so far back. So it’s hard for people to say, oh, yeah, I took a lot of antibiotics as an infant, or this is what I was exposed to at birth or question things like were you breastfed, were you not breastfed, all of those are very important questions that come into play, but are very sort of hard to pinpoint down in this population. But there’s a big effort ongoing with that. And then the question is, though, there’s these changes in our microenvironment and then how do other factors come into play like our immunity, or things that affect our immunity adversely, something that we might be exposed to in the environment. Obesity, we ask patients, were you obese? Or when we meet them, they’re not obese, in fact, many of them are very fit, but were they obese as an infant or as a young child, those are all really important things that we need to take a look at. And then things such as diabetes, or what we call this metabolic syndrome, that affects our way of metabolizing certain things, and offsets that balance that perhaps might lead to early onset colorectal cancer. So all of these are very high suspects. So what we think is it’s this interplay, as I just described.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 07:51
But what we know, and what’s really actually very scary, is that this is a global phenomenon. So this is not unique to the east coast, where I am, of the US and it’s not unique to the United States. It’s really occurring all over the world, in developing countries, but also in developed countries and even in countries that are smaller countries. For example, my native country, Slovenia, very small country, very farm-to-table, very active in general as a population and yet we’re seeing this really significant rise. We’re seeing it in Asia. We’re seeing it in Australia. So it’s happening everywhere and so there must be some unifying factor behind this that we have not yet identified. So in an answer to this, actually, we opened our Center for Young Onset Colorectal Cancer. So it’s the center at Memorial Sloan Kettering dedicated to patients under the age of 50. We established it actually almost four years ago now. We were the first center in the world. And I’m happy to say that many other academic centers in the United States and now the world have actually followed suit, which is really fantastic and really important. And we helped them establish those centers. And the idea here was that we were seeing more and more young patients. The patients had different needs than what we were used to taking care of in our patients who were 60 and 70. And that’s not to say that treatment, you know, toxicity of treatment, financial toxicity, family dynamics are not important when you’re 60 or 70, but it is very different when you’re in your 20s, just starting your life or in your 40s, taking care of your young children, taking care of a potentially even aging parents having to deal with the burden of going through treatment. And so we really noted, actually with the help of many patient advocacy reports that were really influential, that patients really felt sort of at a loss after treatment, and that we felt that if we were able to offer early intervention, with ancillary support services like social work, everyone in our center meets our social worker at least once and many continue their care with her. Some are referred out to other support groups, some just don’t need such support and others, we refer to psychiatry and psychology, we have early fertility, which we noted is very critical for our patients. Others have since published this data that really even a conversation, even if they have advanced disease, at least a conversation and ability to decide whether or not they would want to have a child, even if it meant they weren’t going to live to meet that child was very critical for our patients. And so that’s something that’s offered early on. For our patients, sexual health is critical. It is very, very important in our patients with rectal cancer in particular, because of all the toxicity from treatment from the radiation and from surgery, but all of our patients in general, even men who undergo surgery. So we introduced sexual health or early on. Integrative medicine., many of our patients are interested in doing something for themselves in addition to the chemotherapy. Can I take vitamins? Can I do acupuncture? So we have a fantastic Integrative Medicine Department that offers those services that I find critical. And of course, the rest of the medical care remains as it would have been in terms of the referrals to medical oncology, surgery or our colleagues in radiation oncology. And then our second and equally I think as important objective of our center was to establish a clinical database. So a prospective database of all of our patients that come through the door enroll in our program. We have a biospecimen repository. So we collect things like stool for that microbiome analysis that I mentioned. We have a very lengthy, but important risk factor questionnaire, from infancy into early adulthood, in terms of potential things that they were exposed to. We collect blood as well, as well as tumor tissue for analysis.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 12:54
And just to give you an example, this is actually our team. Larry, on the left is our fantastic Project Manager without whom we would not exist and he meets the patients early on, introduces them with an email and an information session and helps us manage the database. Hadley is the second from the left. She is our social worker who I mentioned, meets all of our patients. That’s me in the middle and then my Co-Director, Dr. Mendelsohn is a gastroenterologist. And Asha is one of our Research Coordinators. And we’ve since expanded to other research coordinators and are hiring a nurse practitioner as well. So this is just an example of our patients treated. Unfortunately, we have no shortage of patients. We started out with 201 patients in 2018 and now we’re now up to 519. These are new patients under the age of 50 that walk through the door in this case. These are not existing patients that are part of our center. These are brand new people that we met in 2021, despite COVID. So really a large number of patients.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 13:58
And so just to give you a little bit of a sense of what early onset colorectal cancer is. One of our first questions and a really important research question is what are we exactly dealing with? Is this a totally new disease? Is this something that we’re not used to seeing? Or is this simply a disease that used to happen in people in their 60s and 70s that’s now shifting all over the world to happen younger and younger and younger. I had two 15 year olds this year. Pediatrics called me and said, This is not our disease, please help take care of these patients. So I treated them with the help of our Pediatrics Department, which is not something that we were used to seeing. And more and more of this is happening. So the crux of the question, I believe, was new disease? Something different? Or same disease and shifting? And how do we better treat it were the questions that came after that.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 14:52
So what do we know about this disease? So initially, the reports were really alarming. The large majority of these patients presented with late stage disease. And the thoughts were well, this is more aggressive. this is a different disease, this is something that we’re not used to seeing. But remember these are patients that are not being screened. And a lot of patients, not as many as there should be, but a lot of our patients over the age of 50, are thankfully detected and diagnosed with those screening colonoscopies. So they might have a stage I cancer or they might have stage II cancer that was caught early and that’s how they’re detected. These patients, many of them just don’t didn’t undergo screening because it was not recommended. But additionally, what we learned actually from the Colorectal Cancer Alliance, their analysis, their survey, is that a large majority of these patients saw at least two physicians prior to being diagnosed. They were kind of dismissed as Oh, this is hemorrhoids, this is nothing, just rectal bleeding, you’re fine. It didn’t occur to anyone to refer them for that screening colonoscopy. And then what we learned also was that many of our young patients actually themselves, deferred going to a doctor. They were busy, they had exams, they had a job, they had family to take care of so they didn’t undergo screening for six, seven months, or didn’t see a doctor rather, for many months, minimizing their symptoms, minimizing their rectal bleeding. So a really important thing that we want to spread to the general public is if you have persistent symptoms, go see a doctor, this could be happening, even if you’re in your 30s.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 16:33
And then what we looked at and others have looked at as well is, is this a hereditary cancer? Is this something that we’re used to seeing, you know, Lynch Syndrome, familial polyposis, adenomatous polyposis that we’re just seeing more of for whatever reason. And in fact, this is not the case. 60% or more of these were more random, or what we call sporadic where they don’t even have a family history. So their parents are in their 50s/60s, they’re completely fine with not even a polyp on their screening colonoscopies and here are these 30 year olds with colon cancer for completely unknown reasons, completely sporadic or random. So as I mentioned, our first question was really to take a good look at this. So we had a lot of patients, we had nearly 1,500 patients, half under the age of 50, half over the age of 50. And we wanted to look at their tumor biology. We know the molecular signature of colorectal cancer very well. We know that left sided tumors look different than right sided tumors. This has been reported. This is established. We actually treat them differently for all comers. And so our question was, if we can take a very good look at the molecular signature, but have complete clinical annotation, including not only the age of the patients, but the whole treatment history, the presenting symptoms, the location of their tumor, and then look at the molecular genetics, with that in mind, do we still see any differences because earlier reports were saying, Oh, it looks different, but they didn’t have the full clinical annotation and we know that if we take a group of 60 year olds, and we compare them, they may look different, because those that have a right sided tumor will look different than those with a left sided tumor. So that was really, really important to take a look at. So what we saw is that more patients that were younger, under the age of 50, had rectal tumors, and we were not the first to report this. This was known and we saw this as well. Why this is, we don’t know. But this was definitely the case for us. Because of that more young patients presented with rectal bleeding because of the tumor location, if it’s in the rectum patients bleed more, whereas if it’s on the right side, they tend to have more anemia. And that’s what we saw in our groups exactly. And then when we looked at the actual genetics, there was no difference. So left to left the tumors in even our very own cohort and our patients over the age of 50, even in their 70s and 80s, no differences when comparing left sided to left sided or right sided to the right sided. Suggesting really to us that in this population, these were predominantly stage IV metastatic tumors, when you truly compare and have a clean comparison, it really looks like the same disease. So there really was no difference. And although we all wanted to find something, we wanted to have this difference, we believe that this was really explained by this general shift in incidence, something is changing in our intestinal tract that’s just causing us to make the same tumors so much younger than we used to. And what kind of goes along with that, and I think makes matters even worse, is that this rise is not unique to colorectal cancer. We’re actually seeing this in other GI cancers as well throughout the intestinal tract. So young onset cancers are rising in pancreas, in appendix cancers, I see a lot of appendix cancers, many of them are under the age of 50, and this is rising in stomach cancers, and other neuroendocrine cancers as well. So something clearly is changing throughout our gut, it’s not unique to the colon. The colon is most common, obviously, it’s most common in general.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 20:20
And you could see here from the numbers, we roughly doubled our numbers when we look at all gastrointestinal cancers under the age of 50. But because of this rise, and because all of our young patients have the same clinical needs that our colorectal cancer patients have, we’ve actually expanded our center with all the services as well as the research focus, to all of GI, not just limited to colorectal cancer, with our numbers now approaching just under 1,000 patients a year under the age of 50 with GI tumors. So that’s been a really important piece of our center, this expansion with clinical support. And as I mentioned, we’re growing our clinical support team to better be able to take care of our patients. We have great established research efforts with our basic scientists, including applications for NIH funding, looking at things like microbiome, looking deeper into the tumor biology, epigenetics. Thankfully, and I’m very proud and very happy that with this we have great collaborations established with other centers in the United States, including Dana Farber. And we’ve helped established their center and are now collaborating with several analyses, including microbiome and risk factor questionnaire, which is fantastic, and super important. And then as well as internationally. As I mentioned, this is rising globally. So we really need to look beyond MSK, for sure, but beyond the East Coast, beyond the US, putting our heads together to try to figure out why this is happening. And then we have a number of clinical trials that are looking to address unmet needs and improve outcomes. So in terms of unmet needs, a big one that comes up for us all the time is fertility. As I mentioned, all of our patients need and deserve this conversation. But it’s challenging for us to sort of give them hard data to say, okay, you need surgery, and then you’re gonna get adjuvant chemotherapy with 5FU and oxaliplatin as we give our colon cancer patients, but I can’t quite quote you exactly what’s going to happen with fertility. We have a little bit of data based on a retrospective survey that we did, a little bit of data borrowing from the breast cancer data, but we don’t actually know from our own patients with our own chemotherapy, exactly what happens to their hormones when they regain their menstrual cycle. Can they have babies? Specifically in colon cancer in the curative setting in the adjuvant setting, but also in rectal cancer, where we use a lot of radiation and surgery, we don’t know the effect for example of radiation on testicular scatter. So we have a protocol now looking at patients with colon cancer and with rectal cancer in the curative setting, monitoring things like female hormones, LH/FSH. What happens to them on treatment? What happens to them off treatment and follow up into survivorship? What happens to sperm counts, sperm motility, the quality of the sperm during radiation and after radiation? And then in women as well, we’ve improved our radiation techniques for rectal cancer. We can move the ovaries outside of the field. We can do a lot of things. But we tell our young women that radiation to the surface renders it incapable of carrying a fetus due to the effects of the radiation and the scarring from the radiation on the blood vessels that supply the necessary blood to the uterus. But radiation techniques have improved. And so the study will also look at the blood supply to the uterus to see if perhaps that may not be the case, or what actually the effects are of the radiation on the blood supply specifically.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 24:11
And then today, I’ll talk a little bit about one of our trials looking to improve outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer specifically. So this was a Phase II Study of Induction PD-1 Blockade in Patients with Locally Advanced Mismatch Repair Deficient Rectal Adenocarcinoma. It’s an ongoing study that we opened in December of 2019. So the rationale behind this was that we do well with total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. So this is in all comers and remember, rectal cancer in particular is quite common in our young patients under the age of 50. That’s what’s really rising the most. And so what we do is in an early stage tumor, we give all of our therapy upfront before surgery, so that includes chemotherapy and radiation, then we restage them, and then we take them to surgery. And the idea of this approach is really to maximize response, decrease the chances of micrometastatic disease because we’re treating everything early and improve surgical outcomes. And in some patients, if they have a complete response, we’re able to actually defer surgery. It’s always with a discussion with the surgeon, but there’s been a lot of movement towards nonoperative management in this field. Specifically, because of the morbidity associated with rectal surgery. Many of our patients, up to a third, need a permanent colostomy. So we kind of were one of the first groups to establish sort of the benefit of total neoadjuvant therapy. There were earlier studies going on, but we really showed that when we give all this therapy upfront, which is called total neoadjuvant, therapy or TNT, you could see that our response rates are either tumor either being completely gone with surgery or completely gone with clinical evaluation, improved from 21% when we used to give chemoradiation alone and then surgery and then did chemotherapy, to 36% when we gave all of the treatment upfront. So that’s part of the NCCN Guidelines now and pretty established at most centers as the standard for locally advanced rectal cancer. So we do better. However, surgery as I mentioned, still has a lot of toxicities. Many patients experience urinary incontinence, many patients experience sexual dysfunction, men more so than women. It’s not talked about as much, but it’s true, and defacatory problems, up to a third, and a permanent colostomy in many of our patients that have very low tumors. And so these are not trivial. So although it is a curative procedure, and critically important for our patients, it does come with significant sequelae, which affect everybody but especially our young patients. Radiation also has its consequences. There’s short and long term toxicity of radiation. So negative impact on bowel function, bladder function, sexual function, which is critical for many of our young patients, reproductive function as well. Chemotherapy is important in downsizing but also has its own set of potential toxicities. So the idea behind chemotherapy is that we’re giving it for treatment for metastatic disease early. We’re giving it early to potentially have the opportunity of maybe not radiate or maybe not do surgery. And it can actually get rid of symptoms quite early, we found actually faster than radiation. And critical, I think here for us, is that actually it can give us a clue as to who those patients are that don’t respond to chemotherapy.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 28:12
So mismatch repair deficient locally advanced rectal cancer, or what’s known as MSI-high comprises about 5 to 10% of all locally advanced rectal cancer. So there’s about 40,000 of those a year. So about 5 to 10% of those, roughly maybe about 4,000 or so cases annually. The majority of these patients do have Lynch Syndrome. So they are part of our young onset patients, but these actually have a specific hereditary predisposition, not all. So some of them are still sporadic and are mismatch repair deficient. But about 84% of them do have Lynch Syndrome. And because they have Lynch Syndrome, many of them are very, very young because they’re diagnosed for the first time when they present with this cancer. We know that this particular subset of tumors don’t respond well in the colon to adjuvant chemotherapy, so to adjuvant 5FU alone. And what we noted because of our total neoadjuvant therapy approach in rectal cancer, we also saw this. We actually saw that nearly 30% of these patients when they got total neoadjuvant therapy, just chemotherapy, did not respond or progressed.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 29:25
And you could see that here. This was in huge contrast to our patients that have what’s called mismatch repair proficient or MSS tumors where everyone either responded or had stable disease here, nearly 30% of them actually were resistant to chemotherapy. So that was quite scary. And other studies have actually shown this as well.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 29:47
So this is the design of the study. The idea basically, is that we give six months of immunotherapy and then if they have a complete response, we assess them and they can be followed with nonoperative management. And they can omit radiation and omit surgery. If they don’t, then they undergo the standard schema. So the way that we designed the response criteria was based on published data where we were really strict about this, we needed our surgeons to look with an endoscopy as well as an MRI with our radiologist and they had to have complete disappearance of tumor visually, with digital exam, like a digital exam of the rectum, as well as by MRI. So very, very strict criteria for definition of complete response.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 29:47
This was a study called FOxTROT where they gave chemotherapy to patients with colon cancer that could have undergone surgery, but they gave preoperative chemotherapy and then kind of assessed response and they saw in their subset of patients that had mismatch repair deficient or MSI high tumors, that a large proportion of them did not respond, very different to their MSS tumors. It was kind of supporting the same things that these tumors are just not as sensitive to chemotherapy. But we know that this population does really well with immunotherapy. We have great data in the metastatic setting and we have a small study in the neoadjuvant setting or preoperative setting in early stage colon cancer where they gave it to a few patients with mismatch repair deficiency, and just a few cycles, and then took them to surgery and 60% of them had a pathologic complete response. So this was the idea behind the design of our study, where we thought, okay, this is the treatment paradigm, what if we swap out the chemotherapy, and instead of giving chemotherapy, we replace it with immunotherapy. And then we give immunotherapy for six months, and then assess the patients. And if they have a complete response, they can undergo observation, nonoperative management, they can even omit radiation. If they don’t have a complete response, they can get the standard of care chemoradiation and then if they have a complete response again, they can undergo observation. If they don’t, they can undergo surgery. So the beauty here was that we follow these patients very, very closely and if they had a complete clinical response to just immunotherapy, they can skip potentially both the radiation and the surgery. So this would be hugely beneficial, especially for our young patients, but for all of our patients, where they could omit the toxicity,potentially, of radiation as well as surgery.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 32:33
Okay, so this is the third study schema. I don’t think it’s anything other than what we mentioned, just to show you that we’re doing very specific, thorough sort of assessments and careful watching of the patients on immunotherapy with the baseline exam six weeks, three months and six months. This is the study design. And this was the response criteria.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 32:59
And here’s the summary of the patients enrolled. So the total number of patients enrolled is 16 patients so far. 11 of them have completed all six months of therapy. So it’s the 11 that that we’re presenting as evaluable. And what’s important here is that all of the patients had very big, advanced bulky tumors, 94% of them had lymph node involvement. So that suggests like a later stage tumor, not a very small tumor where we would potentially just be able to do surgery or not need to do chemotherapy or not need to do radiation. These were patients that by standard treatment, we would have offered chemotherapy and chemoradiation and then very likely also surgery. We assessed 14 patients, and out of the 14, 57% had Lynch Syndrome, which is kind of what we expected to see.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 33:57
And then these are the patient responses. So the most important thing here is that out of the 11 patients who completed therapy, all 11 of them had the tumor disappear with just immunotherapy alone, none of them needed radiation, and none of them have needed surgery. So this was really, really, really exciting data for us, obviously, in terms of 100% response rate, which has never been seen. But then more importantly, I think for our patients, you could see in the age range, the youngest is 26, oldest is 77. But all of them, none of them needed radiation. We have several young women who want to have babies of whom that was critically important. We had several patients with very low tumors who would have needed a permanent colostomy, who have not needed surgery. We’re following them very closely. Four of them have crossed the one year mark so are already, kind of statistically speaking, in a very good place in terms of the very, very low chances of this tumor growing back. But it has been really exciting data so far and really nothing better than then happy, happy tears from patients and happy messages in terms of how well they’ve done and how well they feel after completion of treatment. So it’s been really incredibly rewarding and fantastic and very promising so far. So that’s the patients. I’ll say that patient number 13 is still on treatment. He was assessed here just at three months, but already had no tumor. So it was very, very exciting that he’s already kind of reached that group as well. But we’re not including them in the report because he hasn’t completed the full six months of therapy.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 35:48
And this is a little bit graphic, but I just want to show you because I think a picture really speaks 1000 words. So this is one of our patients. 30 year old woman, newly diagnosed Lynch Syndrome, presented with rectal bleeding, as most of them did, some rectal pain, diagnosed with this rectal tumor and enrolled on our trial because she was mismatch repair deficient. And then we did a genetics workup and found out that she does have MSH2 pathogenic mutation and does in fact, have Lynch Syndrome. And this is her endoscopy. So the top of theslide is the start of Dostarlimab treatment. So all the way on the left, you can’t really miss it, is a visual of her tumor with an endoscopy. So this is a rectal tumor. So the endoscopist in this case here, our surgeon, looks in with the scope, through the anus, into the beginning of the rectum from the anus, into the rectum. And you almost don’t see what’s called the lumen or the hole that leads to the rest of the bowel up into the colon. This is all tumor. This is all very abnormal. This is treatment on Dostarlimab. Beautiful response very early on. This is just four months of treatment, nearly no tumor, and this is just the beautiful perfect lining that we would expect anyone to have that does not have cancer, so completely gone, it was already gone here. This is when they biopsied. We see a little bit of blood. So that’s why this picture was just taken after the biopsy, but you could see very rapid, phenomenal, just fantastic response. And there, they marked the scar, which I would not have appreciated. But that’s just the little scar and that’s what we see on MRI as well. And this was a year out and this patient remains disease free now over two years out from completion of therapy just nearly two years out. So really fantastic, beautiful response. And again, sorry that it’s graphic, but I really think it really illustrates how well this response, how quickly the response, and obviously you can see from this, our patients feel better really very quickly. And so no radiation, no surgery, this is just immunotherapy alone.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 38:26
So in conclusion, with this trial, we’re seeing 100% response rate so far in our patients who have completed six months of therapy. This is critically important for our patients as it may allow them to avoid chemoradiation and surgery. We of course need to continue follow up. We need to really establish the durability of this response. And we have ongoing very close surveillance of our patients. In the schema, its every four months they undergo surveillance with MRI and visual surveillance with endoscopy. And this represents a potential new treatment paradigm based on such robust responses. And our hope is, more broadly, as part of The Young Onset Center for all of our patients, it’s part of our research focus, to do this, but for other patients as well, not just our patients with MSI high tumors, but to really try to focus on improving outcomes while minimizing morbidity in all of our patients but particularly our young patients with early advanced disease, as well as with metastatic disease. And then I think the greater goal of The Young Onset Center is to identify the patients that are at risk. We don’t know how to find them. We can’t screen everybody. We can’t do surveillance colonoscopies, as I mentioned in the 15 year olds that I’m seeing, but our goal is to find risk factors, and find those people that are at risk for whatever reason and screen them and prevent this cancer from happening in the first place. And thank you so much for your attention. I really appreciate your time and welcome any questions.

Participant Question 40:16
From August 20 to February 21, do they continue to have Keytruda?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 40:25
No. Thank you for asking that. That’s a great question. Do you see the blue line on top? The drug is called Dostarlimab. But it’s a PD-inhibitor just like Keytruda, but it’s a different drug. But we finish here. Thank you for asking this. It’s only six months of therapy. That’s it. So this woman finished here in May, and then did not receive any therapy. All of this, including to now, it’s just observation. So we actually weren’t sure how long to do the treatment for. Based on some of the earlier data and the fact that this was locally advanced, we decided to do six months of therapy, and it really looks like that is sufficient for response. Many of our patients, we see it quite early on. But everyone gets just six months of therapy.

Manju George 41:21
Okay, thank you for that. I think there was another question.

Participant Question 41:25
Yes. Hi. Frst of all, thank you very much for this wonderful and very exciting work. And thank you for your presentation. My question is, out of those 11 patients that you had with this wonderful response, were any with mucinous tumors?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 41:43
Great question. Yes, we had two patients with mucinous tumors. So those are quite tricky. We biopsy the patients frequently each time that they’re assessed, so at each of these, they get a biopsy, as I mentioned. So we saw disappearance of the tumor very early. With mucin on the MRIs, we discuss them with our tumor board and if the agreement was that they were mucinous tumors based on assessment, based on MRI, we agree to watch them. We have a lot of experience with mucinous tumors and know that often these take a long time to regress. So two of those patients did have mucinous tumors, and then by MRI, there’s still something there, but we know that it’s mucin. But it is definitely trickier with mucinous tumors.

Participant Question 42:40
So when you said you had complete pathologic response, what you said that for mucinous tumors, the tumors didn’t actually disappear, but the biopsy didn’t show anything?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 42:50
Correct. So yeah, not that we take the Biopsy with a grain of salt, I don’t put too much weight into it, because they just kept the superficial area, but all of those biopsies were negative in all the patients, but since we didn’t take any of them to surgery, we don’t call it pathologic, but yeah, the tumor was completely gone in all the the mucinous patients as well.

Manju George 43:17
Dr. Cercek, do you want to talk a little bit about the presence of mucin against the finding tumor cells in it like with the mucinous tumors?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 43:29
Yeah. So, we don’t know to be honest, I think from the metastatic setting in some of these MSI tumors, there is a concern that if it sits there, it can eventually grow, we don’t know, or if the mucin is just dead tissue. I think that’s why observation in these patients is going to be so important. I can tell you, prior to the study, sort of my inspiration for this study, were several patients that I treated that had these ugly progressive tumors on chemotherapy, and then I treated them with immunotherapy and they had beautiful responses. And I have a few that have mucinous tumors that I’ve watched now for years. And they just kind of sit there or they’re just slowly regressing over time. So it’s still up for debate. I know that we’ve had cases certainly discussed at tumor board where it looks like tumor in the metastatic setting and they have a rectal primary, they undergo resection and then there’s absolutely nothing but mucin and everybody regrets having put these people through surgery. So I think mucin gives everybody pause, we pay close attention to it, we’re doing that anyway on trial. So I don’t think we’re missing anything or compromising the care of those patients. Because we’ve seen so much so that they undergo surgery for no reason sometimes. So, it’s the best we can do, I think.

Manju George 44:58
Okay, so what you’re basically saying Is that from your clinical experience, even when you have found mucin, but no cancer, the patients seem to have good prognosis. And based on that, you’re saying that this is likely to be the case here also.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 45:11
Exactly, exactly.

Manju George 45:14
Thank you very much. And I had one question. Have you guys looked at the link between microplastics in diet? I think that we’re all eating microplastics whether we know it or not.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 45:25
Yes. I love that question Manju because I have looked at it myself a lot. I think, you know, it’s they are everywhere, right? I’ve read a lot of papers and sort of tried to find kind of preclinical things that we could look at. It’s definitely a plan of mine. We don’t have anything established yet. But actually, when you really start thinking about it, you realize that they are in absolutely everything. They’re in every Starbucks cup that we drink and in every cup that kids drink, like everything, everything. So baby bottles, I mean, you know, everywhere. So the only thing I’ll say for that, and I’ve thought about it a lot also because of where the tumors are located and how they happen, the only thing is we’ve looked at polyps in these patients and survivors, and they do make polyps. So part of me thought, well, if it’s microplastics, maybe it’s kind of a one and done, you know, something happens, the plastic gets embedded and causes trouble and then a cancer develops. They do make polyps, but it doesn’t seem exactly at the same frequency that colon cancer survivors in their 60s and 70s do but they do make them. They make them much more than we would expect someone in their 30s and 40s. So there’s probably something more but whether there’s a global change, or maybe the estrogens in the microplastics. I don’t want to spread false rumors. It’s not linked to estrogens at all. But maybe there’s some changes that happened that we just don’t know about. So yeah, to your point, I think yes, that’s one of them. And like they’re all over the sea, right?? They are in everything we ingest.

Manju George 47:10
It’s even in breastmilk?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 47:13
Right. Yeah.

Participant Question 47:14
I was wondering, I know, it’s not quite a fair question. But, in your medical opinion, if you compare Dostalimab this Pembro, how do they compare? Is one a little more effective than the other? Are they very similar? What do you think?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 47:30
I think they should be very similar. They should be the same. I don’t have any data to suggest otherwise. I can tell you, you know, this trial is with Dostalimab, so I think it’s fantastic. It’s working really well. But we’ve had great success in the metastatic setting and in the anecdotal patients that I mentioned with Pembrolizumab and so they should be the same. They are both PD-1 inhibitors. But I don’t have data to tell you. There’s no like head-to-head comparison. And there won’t be, I don’t think.

Manju George 48:05
Okay. And is it that for this trial, when you were designing it, this was the drug that was available and that’s why you went with it?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 48:11
Yeah, exactly.

Manju George 48:13
Okay.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 48:13
Exactly. Yeah. It was an investigator initiated study.

Manju George 48:18
Okay. You had to go with what was offered?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 48:20
Yeah.

Manju George 48:21
And then one question I had was that in MSI-high recal cancer, you’re seeing a lot of Lynch Syndrome, right? Is that already known? Or is there a reason why?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 48:34
We don’t know. It’s a little bit different patterns too in terms of MSH6, MSH2, being the predominant finding mutations, We don’t know why. It’s been published. We saw it in our cohort. We’re seeing it now in this trial, though, it’s early. And it’s been published by others as well. But we don’t know why that is. There’s no good explanation. It’s just a bit more than what we’re used to seeing in colon where they tend to be more sporadic.

Manju George 49:04
Okay. And then I kind of want to tell you that in Colontwon, we have a Colontown Junior Group, which is for pediatric colorectal cancer, and like you were mentioning, you have two 15 year olds. The idea is that these polyps and things take like 15 years to grow.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 49:21
Right, I know. I mean, it really makes you wonder if it’s something in utero. These two that I mentioned, were like, literally, their parents are, you know, 40 and don’t even have polyps,

Manju George 49:33
Okay, Like completely sporadic?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 49:36
Completely.

Manju George 49:37
Yeah. Okay. And then, you talked about a study, like where they had a couple of cycles of IO, and then 60% of them had pathCR, so when you compare your study with Dr. Ciombor’s study, where she’s using ipi-Nivo and a couple of cycles of radiation, right? How does it compare? Yours, the trial schema is six months of Dostarlim, right?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 49:37
Right.

Manju George 49:39
And do you see any side effects? Is a kind of comparable to Pembro’s profile of side effects?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 49:48
Yes. I think to the single agent. yes. To the combination, which is what Dr. Ciombbor is doing and also what was done in the colon study, I think we do see more toxicity with dual checkpoint blockade. So that was a concern for me, and now that I see that we have this data, for me, it wouldn’t make sense to do two drugs because we’re already seeing 100% response rate with just a single drug. I do think duration plays a role here and in my study design, in particular, my goal really was to see how we can maximize immunotherapy alone to decrease the morbidity of radiation and surgery, because we know in this disease, radiation works. I mentioned our data because the way that we sequenced it was chemotherapy first, then we did chemoradiation. So when you’re taking care of these patients, we saw that the tumors were growing on the chemotherapy, which was not what we were used to seeing, but when we gave chemoradiation, they were salvaged and the disease responded, and they got to surgery and they were cured. But then they had to have radiation. So the idea of with this study, and I think what distinguishes it really is that so far we’ve not had to radiate anybody, we’ve just been doing immunotherapy alone and having a 100% response rate. And so we’re really optimizing the therapy and omitting both radiation and surgery.

Manju George 51:53
Okay. Are you collecting ctDNA and other markers?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 51:58
Yes, yes, we are. Yeah, we’re in the process of analyzing that. I think the ctDNA will be interesting, because we’ll see how it correlates with response and how quickly people clear it. It may or may not be helpful to guide us in terms of like the tumor being completely gone or not. I think that correlation with MRI will be really interesting. So we collected it at every point that we had endoscopic evaluation and biopsy and imaging.

Manju George 52:28
Okay, okay.

Participant Question 52:29
Well, I was wondering, why was it chosen to do immunotherapy for six months initially? Why six months? Because I know that the studies for stage IV, immunotherapy, I believe, was for a year, initially. So why was the duration of six months expected to have such an advanced response? Why not a longer time?

Manju George 52:53
Okay. Thank you. One question. So with the bulky MSI-high tumors, the response is a little bit delayed, right? Like usually you don’t see regression right away on the scans, right? Do you want to make some general comments about your experience dealing with these kinds of bulky large MSI-high tumors?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 52:53
That’s a great question. So I thought about this a lot, as you can imagine, because obviously, the goal was still to cure so we didn’t want to compromise duration. I was very conscious to make sure that the patients had the opportunity to undergo radiation if they needed it and that we weren’t going to give them something that’s going to compromise their chance of cure and a two year mark in a curative setting just seemed really long. And when you look at the metastatic data in patients, at the time, it was just in patients who were refractory. So in the MSI high metastatic patients who got chemo, two, three, four lines of chemo and then had immunotherapy. That was first published by Dr. Lee, the maximal response, the time to response there, was around eight or nine months. So we figured from that number, that naive tumors, early stage, that weren’t metastatic, that didn’t see any chemo before, didn’t have a chance to become a little bit more resistant to the microenvironment would respond better. And then also having seen some of the earlier data in the neoadjuvant setting in the colon cancer with 60%, after just two cycles, six months kind of seemed like a fair compromise to do. But it is a great question, In certain patients, should we have done more? Could we have done less? We assess them at three months, many do have endoscopic regression of the tumor. Not all though. So I think in the end, it was it was a good choice, but that was kind of the thinking with sort of extrapolating from a bunch of different data points. And then importantly, for me, to allow them to be followed closely, and then to get that standard of care if they needed it for cure.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 55:18
Yeah, so that’s another great point. So that was another thing that and why we did such close assessment because we thought, Oh, if they have pseudoprogression, or if these tumors obstruct, but in fact, they respond.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 55:30
You can see from this picture, the response is really quick. But they tell us- they stop bleeding very quickly, after the first or second dose. They feel better, it doesn’t hurt, they stop bleeding, they have normal bowels. So it’s different. It’s actually different and much more powerful. I think the response is faster and more powerful it seems.

Manju George 55:56
Okay. So do you feel that there’s a difference when you use neooadjuvant in the early setting?

Dr. Andrea Cercek 56:03
I do. I do. I think it’s key. I do. I really do. Yeah.

Manju George 56:08
Okay, thank you so much. We are past the time and thank you so much for your time and the great presentation.

Dr. Andrea Cercek 56:14
Absolutely. It’s my pleasure.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Cercek
MSI-H
Rectal
Early-onset
Early-stage
Trials

In this DocTalk, Dr. Andrea Cercek, Founding Co-Director of the Center for Young Onset CRC & GI Cancers at MSKCC, discusses defining disease and improving outcomes for patients with MSI-H rectal cancer with PALTOWN Scientific Director Dr. Manju George. Recorded in February, 2022.

Table of contents: 

1:35: Definition of YO-CRC and incidence rates
2:48: Questions around the causes for the rise in CRC
3:37: Racial disparities in YO-CRC
4:38: Rising rates of rectal cancer
5:00: Role of the gut microbiome, other factors
8:44: Global rise in YO-CRC
9:26: Overview of the MSKCC Center for YO-CRC
14:10: What is YO-CRC, is it different from regular CRC?
17:14: Cancer biology of YO-CRC tumors?
20:00: All GI cancer rates are increasing & new center for YO CRC & GI cancers
24:19: Dr. Cercek’s trial for MSI-H Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (LARC)
26:35: Treatment consequences in LARC
28:15: MSI-H LARC
30:50: Trial schema
31:51: Study design & response criteria
33:57: Summary of patient responses — AMAZING results!
35:55: Case details of a sample patient from the trial with images of tumor shrinkage & disappearance
38:26: Conclusions
40:15: Q&A — Details about the trial, duration of Dostarlimab, info on responses of mucinous MSI-H tumor
47:17: Q&A — How does Dostarlimab compare with Pembro? Comments on response to PD-1 inhibitors in early stage MSI-H Rectal cancer, prevalence of LS in MSI-H rectal cancer patients, how this trial compares to the Ipi+Nivo+RT trial for LARC, comments on why 6m of Dostarlimab was chosen, clinical response/side effects in these patients to Dostalrlimab, ctDNA and other analysis

More Videos

Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer
Dr. Sharif
2023
Defining early-onset CRC and improving outcomes for MSI-H rectal cancer
Dr. Cercek
2022
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial

CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Tie
ctDNA
Stage II
Trials

In this DocTalk recorded August 2022, Dr. Jeanne Tie from The Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia discusses her ctDNA DYNAMIC II trial with PALTOWN Scientific Director, Dr. Manju George.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
04:29: Minimal residual disease (MRD)
06:06: Duke’s staging
07:11: AJCC TNM staging
07:50: Adjuvant treatment for early-stage CRC & challenges
08:53: Things tried in stage II Colon cancer
11:00: Better risk stratification in stage II colon cancer
11:59: Clinical dilemma in stage II colon cancer
13:50: Other challenges
15:55: How to move the field forward?
16:30: Circulating tumor DNA, what is it?
18:12: CtDNA detects MRD
19:19: CtDNA dynamic reflects tumor burden in CRC
20:04: Post-op ctDNA detection and what it means
23:29: CtDNA dynamics — Real-time monitoring & its value
25:18: Serial ctDNA — What info does it provide about adjuvant chemo?
26:35: GALAXY trial results: Role of adjuvant chemo?
27:50: The DYNAMIC II trial
30:00: DYNAMIC II — CtDNA assay used
31:02: DYNAMIC II — Main study results
31:35: DYNAMIC II — Additional results
32:25: DYNAMIC II — Summary
35:00: DYNAMIC III — Design
36:19: Post-treatment ctDNA, role?
37:25: Trials for CtDNA positivity after Adj treatment
40:00: Q & A

Manju George 0:00
Hello everyone. Welcome to DocTalks. I’m Dr Manju George, the Scientific Director at PALTOWN Development Foundation, the nonprofit that supports COLONTOWN. And today we have the pleasure of having Dr. Scott Kopetz with us, who’s going to tell us about the BREAKWATER trial. But before we start, Dr. Kopetz can you tell us how you got interested in doing clinical trials and working in GI oncology?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 0:25
Most certainly. So I think, like many, I had personal reasons to get into oncology. I lost my mother to cancer at a young age, and so I was motivated to tackle this, and ended up in GI oncology, because I just fell in with a wonderful mentor, Paul, who was here at MD Anderson at the time, and was working in colorectal cancer and just kind of fell in love with the clinical problems and the wonderful patients of course, and really have been inspired ever since by all of our patients.

Manju George 1:08
Thank you for sharing. So then, do you want to share your screen?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 1:11
Yep, absolutely. Yeah. So just delighted. This is always so much fun. And I just start by saying, really a delight to be able to discuss and to share some of the updates here, and want to touch on some of the efforts that are ongoing. I know it’s been a little while since we’ve had an update, and so I’ll start with a little bit of background, and then dive into where the field is now and where we’re going. So some conflicts: very involved in a lot of these companies that are involved in developing novel therapies for BRAF. So kind of a key point I always like to start off with, and so apologies for those of you that have seen this slide a dozen times before. But the idea is that this is a cancer that when we have a BRAF mutation, it results in activation of growth factors, or a growth signaling pathway, right? This is a normal, healthy pathway in your body. When you cut your skin, your epithelium- your skin cells, turn it on to grow and repair, and then it gets turned off. The problem when there’s a mutation in the pathway like BRAF is that it’s constantly on and these cells are then growing. And what we found, though, is that these cancer cells like to be in this state, and that when you inhibit BRAF, with a medicine like encorafinib, that you indeed can shut down that pathway. The growth turns off, but the tumor adapts. The cancer likes this state. And then in cancer terms, we talk about this as homeostatic regulation. It’s like the thermostat: If it’s hot or cold, things get turned on or off with your heat or AC to adjust, and it’s the same thing with with cancer cells. And so there’s a transient inhibition, but the tumor adapts, has all these feedback mechanisms. The wiring that turns on other things upstream through the EGFR receptor is one of the prominent ones, and then what happens is that same signaling pathway gets turned back on.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 1:11
So the fundamental concept, and why we are using combination therapy and BRAF is because when you inhibit that second node, the EGFR, then you can shut down that adaptive mechanism, and so the combination provides benefit where either one alone doesn’t. So of course, this is the rationale behind the BEACON study, which looked at the encorafinib, the cetuximab, the BRAF and EGFR, compared it to chemotherapy control, then and looked at both triplet with a MEK, which didn’t provide any benefit, or the doublet with the BRAF and EGFR, which showed very nice results and improved overall survival, increased response rate, was a nice building block then for us to now become a standard of care, but also recognizing ways that we want to improve.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
So one way to look at this is to say it’s clearly active providing benefit from patients. There’s a subset of patients who can be on this regimen for a really long time. There’s also a number of patients that get some benefit for several months, and then the tumor adapts and progresses. So one of the questions is, well, why is that? And one of the areas that we’ve been able to characterize is really understanding these mechanisms of resistance. This is a complex slide, but what I want to do is just to have you visually look at the control and looking for any red mark, and a red mark means there’s some acquired event in the tumor. You can see very little evidence of red but when you look at the treatments with the BRAF and EGFR, you see all of these red marks. These red marks are predominantly around RAS mutations. There’s some other ones. But really, this idea that KRAS and NRAS can get mutated, the tumor mutates those in order to maintain that addiction to that growth signaling. And so, there’s an example here of a case study. And this is something I reported last year at ESMO. And this is a patient that was on the trial and at the time of progression, after about eight months on treatment that we looked in the tumor by circulating tumor DNA. So all of these KRAS mutations. These are all present in different subclones. And this is a real challenge, right?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
How do we prevent these subclones from growing out and developing resistance to the therapies? So put a pencil on that -we’ll come back to that, and some interesting hypotheses coming on that, but just acknowledging that, that’s one of the limitations that we’re dealing with. So where’s the field going? This is a good foundation, as I mentioned, and I’ll talk about some of the studies here briefly, and not really focusing a bit on BREAKWATER study, which is our first-line trial, really trying to understand how we best utilize this.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
So first, let me share some of the preclinical data that’s ongoing, and asking, “Can we do better? Is the idea of targeted therapy and more traditional chemotherapy, can we combine those and get more benefit out of that?”. Well, one of the findings that we had when we looked at this in our mice work is–in the mouse, we can generate the tumors, we can treat them with one therapy, and then move into second-line in the mouse, and then, compare this to when we do it altogether. And what we can see is that this interesting phenomenon. We think about chemotherapy and targeted therapy is two different things, but the reality is that there is some degree of cross-resistance between them, meaning that when a tumor develops resistance to chemotherapy, itcan sometimes develop resistance to the BRAF inhibitor, even though it’s never seen the BRAF inhibitor, and then vice versa. So these are kind of complex figures, but I think the way to look at it is to say, here is the benefit of encoafinib in this model, when you give encorafinib and cetuximab in first-line, the tumor has never seen a chemotherapy. However, if you give chemotherapy first, wait for the tumor to progress, and then give the BRAF and EGFR, you don’t get as much benefit. So these models aren’t under control for as long. And interesting– the same with the chemotherapy, so the prior targeted therapy may impact that. So the question is that sequential may not always be optimal in that situation. And so when we look at this and say, ‘Well, what if we put them together? What if we put the chemotherapy together with this?’.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
If you’re not used to looking at these mouse model graphs, what you’re looking for are tumors that are shrinking, going below the lines. And here you can see in the blue, these are the lowest, the best, and the combination of the targeted therapy and chemotherapy may actually induce more activity. So some of the conceptual rationale behind the BREAKWATER study: This is a large international phase III study that’s ongoing, and I’ll show you some of the data from the safety lead-in which was just ensuring, as we thought, that this would be safe to combine chemo, either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, with the encorafinib and cetuximab. The ongoing study from phase III has three arms currently as you can see here. We don’t have any results from that, so nothing I can share yet on the randomized portion. Well, I’ll share some of the really promising data on this safety lead-in. First we should reflect and remember that chemotherapy alone in first-line gives us about a 40% response rate, the targeted therapy about a 20% in the later lines. And so we’re looking at some of these response rates, now the combination and seeing in first-line now 68/75% of the patients are having their tumors shrink down by more than half in volume. And even in second-line, where we expect maybe a 10% activity of the chemotherapy, you can see really promising, 40 or so percent shrinkage. and that duration of response is really fairly long. So remembering that with encorafenib-cetuximab we’re seeing duration of responses in under six months or so, we seem going much higher. The other way we can look at it is these progression-free survival curves where we’re seeing PFS’s that are really promising here, even in second-line, where medium PFS is somewhere in that four to six months with our current standard of care now, these small cohorts see really promising data. So, just acknowledging encouraging numbers, these are small cohorts, but I think giving us in the field a lot of enthusiasm that we’re going to see benefit with these combinations.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
Alright, so let’s go back to this–what about the mechanisms of resistance? So, a little complex– throwing a lot of scientific terms out here, but you we can actually look and see what’s changing in the tumor. And the bottom line is that when tumors progress on chemotherapy or targeted therapy or the combination, they actually have a very different pattern. And you see a number of different changes that suggest that we’re constraining the potential mechanisms of resistance, and that when you give the cancer fewer opportunities to progress there are fewer solutions to the problem of how to grow it in this regimen, what we see is that means that the tumors have a longer period of disease control. So I think the biology is really suggesting that.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 2:42
Now, interestingly, if we look at not BRAF colorectal cancer tumors, but if we look at patients that don’t have a BRAF mutation or a RAS mutation, these are ones that would benefit from the EGFR inhibition alone. There’s some data that we presented just recently in 2 JCO papers that reflect on the fact that RAS mutations occur in 40 and 20% KRAS and NRAS of patients treated with an EGFR inhibitor alone, but when you combine that in first-line with chemotherapy, it turns out that less than 10% of patients develop one of these secondary alterations. So we’re going for more than 50% like we see in BEACON, acquiring these secondary alterations. Now, when we combine it with chemotherapy earlier on, you don’t see the tumors picking that mechanism of resistance of acquiring RAS mutations. So we don’t know, I think it’s going to be really interesting to find out, but the same could occur, right? Can the combined chemotherapy prevent some of these acquired RAS mutations? Now this kind of makes sense, if we recognize that RAS mutations actually don’t result in resistance to chemotherapy, right? So RAS mutations may be the easy way out for developing resistance to the BRAF, but when you’re giving a combination, the tumor has got to find a way to grow through the BRAF inhibitor and the EGFR inhibitor, and through the chemotherapy. And if the acquired RAS mutations doesn’t result in resistance to the cytotoxic chemotherapy. Well, that’s not a solution to the tumor to grow. It’s got to find a harder way an alternate way. So this conceptually makes sense, that we’re cutting off pathways of resistance that may occur. Now the other question that we’ve asked is, well, this combination chemotherapy, we know that at some point with oxaliplatin, we need to stop the oxaliplatin. We use these maintenance regimens. So how do we do that optimally?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 14:26
And and the mouse modeling at least, suggests, probably what we would think makes sense, which is, you can’t just do maintenance with encorafenib. You need both encorafenib and cetuximab, and then also that you may get some benefit by continuing some of that 5-FU alone with it, as we had been alluding to, resulting in some of the alternate mechanisms. So we really think that the maintenance regimens, and this is how it’s written in the study, should be like a 5FU, encorafinib, and cetuximab, once a patient has received a maximal amount of oxaliplatin.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 10:19
All right, so where else is the field going? I’ll share a little bit about some of the updates in the IO space here. And this is building on some nice data that MAPK pathway inhibition, can enhance some of the immune responses in BRAF patients. And so this is that actually, from Ryan Corcoran’s group, looking at – these are old studies that we have done in years past, looking at, in responding patients, it turns out that you see an evidence of immune infiltration. And when you look at paired biopsies from patients who were gracious enough to consent to those, you see this increase in these these T cells. So we know that even though there’s no immunotherapy given in these figures, that just the targeted therapy alone may drive an immune response. And so there was nice data for those interested, looking at a BRAF, MEK, PD-L1 that is in that prior publication, thinking about how do we build on encorafinib and cetuximab, a nice trial led by Van Morris in our group looking at this, saying, “Can you add a PD-1 on top of this, even in microsatellite stable?”, so a small study but encouraging 50% response rate, which favorably compares the 20% we’d expect with the encorafinib-cetuximab alone. And then increasing the durability of this, and I think really seeing some patients that are having amazing durability to their disease.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 16:43
So that is an ongoing randomized study that’s currently enrolling nationwide for patients in second or third-line to be randomized, encorafinib-cetuximab, with or without nivolumab. So two to one randomization, so every three people enrolled, two get the nivolumab and one with the encorafinib-cetuximab. I will mention as an aside that there’s some data suggest maybe the PD-1 can rescue resistance in some settings. So there is a study, or now a cohort, that’s open– encorafenib-cetuximab-nivolumab at our institution, even if patients that had prior encorafenib and cetuximab, there are openings there. So it’s an option to consider.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 1:11
The final study I’ll mention is the rare subset of patients that have MSI high, which is more immune-sensitive and a BRAF mutation. And this is a trial ongoing that’s randomizing an initial first line setting; Pembro or PD-1 with or without the encorafenib, cetuximab to try to again, show that synergy between immunotherapy and targeted therapy. All right, so with that, just to conclude, I think this group knows: BRAF mutations, poor prognosis. We should be testing for it. We should make sure that this is a known status and that combination strategies are certainly successful, the encorafenib-cetuximab’s, the current standard of care. But hopefully I convince you that there’s some good rationale, pre-clinically and preliminary data from our first 60 patients, of potential benefit when we combine chemotherapy with encorafenib-cetuximab, and that study is ongoing, the BREAKWATER study, but there’s really interesting biology suggesting that you may be influencing and constraining the mechanisms of resistance. So if we can really shut off some of those RAS mutations, for example, that would be a substantial benefit. A lot of other areas, I don’t have time to go through all of them, but just updating where we are with the PD-1 combination: There’s work going on in neoadjuvant in the UK and adjuvant settings here in the US, a number of novel combinations are ongoing, including – I’d highlight this really interesting data that came out of an unbiased screening study with BET inhibition which is a epigenetic modifier in BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer models that was presented at AACR this year, and there’s actually a trial through the NCI network that will be opening up here the next few months to test that in patients who’ve previously been treated with encorafenib and cetuximab. So with that, thanks, as always, for your time and interest.

Manju George 19:37
Thank you very much. So, I think I will ask the first question. For a newly diagnosed patient who is BRAF mutated, with all these trials available, what do you think – if they have access to all the trials, what would be the good sequence for them to enroll?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 20:01
I think if they have MSI-H tumor, about 20% of BRAF patients will, the SEAMARK study, the last one that I showed is a great one, thinking about, how do we combine immunotherapy and targeted therapy. In patients who have microsatellite stable, 80% of BRAF patients, those are ones that we really think the BREAKWATER study is a great one to participate in. I think it is really an exciting study. We really hope it will be beneficial there. After that, if after patients have been exposed to encorafenib and cetuximab in some way, again, thinking about, can immunotherapy rescue that, as Dr. Morris’ study here is exploring, but then thinking also about how these other novel therapies, deeper inhibition of MAP kinase pathway and others may play a role.

Manju George 21:01
So basically, you’re saying that – it’s really nice that, Dr. Morris’ study is now accepting patients with encorafenib and cetuximab, right? Because that was something that people were concerned about. And then the other thing is that, so you really believe that the combination plus chemo is better instead of waiting and then, having that separately and then getting on, say, for example, the Van Morris trial?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 21:27
Yeah, so the SWOG study. Right – and I think, and for patients that are maybe on the control arm, for example, of BREAKWATER, I think the SWOG study is a great one. I think your point’s a good one. Just participating in clinical trials is important, and not all trials will be available to all sites, but we really do think that these are some of the more compelling directions that the field could go.

Manju George 22:00
Annie has a question, “Have you seen responses in BRAF patients with peritoneal mets?”

Dr. Scott Kopetz 22:05
Hi Annie, great, great question, as always. So yes, we have. You know, peritoneal disease is sometimes hard to measure and so response rates kind of get a little murky. Without getting too detailed, peritoneal is a, kind of a strip more, kind of across a surface of a tumor. The way that the guidance is to measure tumors, is that you measure the longest dimension of the tumor. So if you think of a strip of cancer, you’ve got to kind of measure that the long dimension. So even if the tumor kind of shrinks down this way, it doesn’t really get reflected. So you will see lower response rates. But part of that’s a bit of a function, a little artificial, just how we quantify the responses, and so you don’t always appreciate the extent of that, but yes, we can see responses in that setting.

Manju George 23:07
OK. I have a question about the schema of BREAKWATER. It seems that they have many cohorts, some of them, I think the main studies, like FOLFIRI plus encorafenib, plus cetuximab, and then they have an additional cohort, like a side one cohort D or something, where they are combining with FOLFOX. And then I also heard that there is some kind of prioritization that patients would be first enrolled into the encorafenib plus cetuximab arm. So, these are some of the questions that patients have, if I’m a newly diagnosed patient and I’m considering BREAKWATER, what are my chances of getting into each of these arms? Because, for example, if I’m just going to get into encorafenib plus cetuximab and I won’t get into a combination arm, then patients are thinking whether that’s a good strategy for them first, to get exposed to it, because then you can’t get on, it shouldn’t narrow down the options that are available to them later.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 24:01
Yeah, right. Yeah, it is. And I think it is important things to understand; So a little clarification: There are some amendments coming to BREAKWATER, really to focus that down a little bit more. And what we’re seeing is that the FOLFIRI component will be evaluated in a bit of a later point, and won’t be part of the initial randomization. So it’s still going to be a FOLFOX based chemotherapy backbone. Just to say, there are some changes coming that will make it a little more condensed and I think a little more patient friendly. Because I think the arms that we really are interested in is, how much does the combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapy compare to what right now is considered the standard of care, which is the chemotherapy alone. So that’s the main question. And I think the goal of really trying to get to that question as soon as possible.

Manju George 25:08
Okay, okay… okay – we will see if there are other questions. I think Annie had maybe one more.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 25:15
Oh yeah, how full SWOG 2107 is right? So, yeah, it’s enrolling. There’s still openings. And I suspect at least over the next six months or so, we’ll have openings there as well.

Manju George 25:33
Then she’s asking about class two and class three mutations.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 25:37
Yeah, great. Yeah, the class two and class three. So class one, is the BRAF V600E. The other mutations in BRAFget separated out into two different classes of therapies. There were some low levels of activity that were presented with a number of different trials. It was a little heterogeneous across many different kinds of settings. Not a great home run evidence of activity in colorectal cancer there. So I’m not sure we have a great solution to those yet, but the rationale is still there. I think part of the problem is that these are very heterogeneous, like not all class twos behave the same, not all class threes behave the same. So it is a little hard to sort out, and they are a bit rare, but we’re learning. We’re making progress. There’s hints of activity, but not any amazing responses yet.

Manju George 26:45
There’s a question from Katie, are you able to get into the BREAKWATER trial, as a second line of treatment?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 26:52
So not into the BREAKWATER. Even though I showed some data from the safety lead-in that included second-line patients, that was just in the safety lead-in. Right now, in the randomized phase III portion it’s patients that are previously untreated that are entering. So the second-line would be more the SWOG 2107 study, enco-cetux with or without PD-1.

Manju George 27:18
Yeah, I think Annie has a question. We had a few patients on the BREAKWATER trial, what is the best next treatment? I think you had mentioned some in your talk, right?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 27:26
Yeah, good question. If they were on the chemotherapy arm, they could then go over to the SWOG study, for example. If they were on the encorafenib-cetuximab, or the combination arm with chemotherapy and encorafenib-cetuximab, then, at that point, you’re right thinking about, if they were just on encorafenib-cetuximab, you could certainly think about chemotherapy at that point. Or, like mentioned, there are clinical trials ongoing in that setting to try to explore.

Manju George 27:27
With the safety lead-in, there were some differences in results with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, right? So, I’ve heard some people ask, with FOLFIRI, there were some interactions, and the drug availability was less… or something. And then the main randomized portion of the trial is now with FOLFOX, but then the long term data show that FOLFIRI as acombination has been better, right?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 28:35
Yeah, so, we don’t really know for sure, I think it’s fair to say. I hate to make too much out of these cohorts of 10 or 15 patients and try to combine in one or the other way. So I think I would be a little more cautious there. There’s a little bit of a PK interaction as I was mentioning, so you don’t get the same exposure to the drugs as you would normally. But not sure that’s playing a big deal based on the results that we’re seeing. Like you said, it was certainly encouraging. So I think that the data really suggests that there’s substantial benefit with the FOLFOX out of the safety lead-in so I’ve been very comfortable in recommending that to the patients. I don’t think we’re missing an opportunity necessarily, on the right partner.

Manju George 29:31
Okay, okay. And then once they finish the chemo plus the Encorafenib+Cetuximab potion, then are you thinking that, say for example, if they don’t have access, we have many – because BREAKWATER is open worldwide, we are fortunate to have the SWOG 2107 right? But many other countries, they don’t. The the idea of combining encorafenib plus cetuximab with nivolumab isn’t that common. So do you think that in that case, they can get LONSURF+bev, or once they progress on the trial, what options could they consider?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 30:08
Right, yeah, so, there’s always the alternate side of toxic regimens that may make a difference. LONSURF+bev I think certainly is reasonable as well. So we do, you’re right, just kind of lean back on what kind of works in general, in colorectal cancer.

Manju George 30:23
Okay, and then, when you look at the resistance mutations, there are so many met amplifications and things like that. Do you think STIVARGA (regorafenib) has worked for people? I’ve seen that some people prefer to use STIVARGA when they get progression on encorafenib plus cetuximab. So what is your personal —

Dr. Scott Kopetz 30:44
–Yeah – we don’t – It’s not great data on that, necessarily. I think it’s a reasonable option, but I don’t know that it’s not something we’ve seen pan out in our preclinical studies, that we’re driving towards a more sensitive phenotype to regorafenib, but certainly a reasonable option.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 31:05
Okay. Were there any learnings from ANCHOR CRC trial regarding PFS or OS to those without peritoneal mets?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 31:14
Yeah, so ANCHOR was a study looking at the encorafenib plus cetuximab plus a MEK inhibitor, and that was running in parallel with BEACON, and we learned from BEACON that the MEK was adding more toxicity, not adding as much benefit. So it’s a little harder to extrapolate some of the ANCHOR data otherwise, but I think what we recognized is that the PFS was kind of in the same range as what we’d expect with the chemotherapy alone and the OS, likewise, looked encouraging, but it was non-randomized for the OS, which makes it hard to interpret. So, the breakdown by with/without, peritoneal metastasis is not really well laid out.

Manju George 32:00
Okay. And then could you say something more about that BET inhibitor trial?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 32:11
Sure. So, this is through an unbiased screen where we asked, ‘if you have a patient or a tumor on encorafenib-cetuximanb, and we screen 1000s of different nodes for ways to modify and we find a node that really tends to be a vulnerability of the cancer, and that turns out to be a bromodomain, which is a regulator ofgene expression. And so there is actually an inhibitor of bromodomain, so we were able to then show the benefits there and bring that together into a clinical trial. So there’s a bromodomain inhibitor plus encorafenib and cetuximab. What it’s doing is, really for those aficionados, is deeper inhibition of the MAP kinase, as well as shutting down MYC signaling, which is a key survival mechanism. So it’s a really way to inhibit MYC, which is one of the key oncogenes.

Manju George 33:09
Okay, I think it’s sort of hard to get the word out to BRAF folks about this trial. Has enrollment been fairly brisk at NCI centers and academic centers worldwide?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 33:22
Uh, let’s see. So I’m not sure which trial?

Manju George 33:27
I think BREAKWATER.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 33:28
Oh, BREAKWATER, yes, it is. It’s going, you know, first-line studies are a little harder, because a lot of times we don’t always know the BRAF status by the time that patients start treatment. So it’s not quite as fast as BEACON but it’s going reasonably well. We’ll get it done. Not always as fast as we like, but we’ll get it done. And I think we’re kind of on track on projections at the moment.

Manju George 33:57
Yeah, yeah. I think that we are working with Pfizer to get, in COLONTOWN University, we are going to be having a featured trial, we’re doing that for BREAKWATER. So my other question would be, since you have those mouse lines that seemed very interesting, where you’re doing sequential treatment and testing, what kind of resistance develops. Are you also doing experiments where you’re doing the encorafenib plus cetuximab plus FOLFOX and seeing what else you can give those mice?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 34:25
Right, so, we haven’t pursued that. I think it’s an interesting area to say, ‘how do you even improve upon where the BREAKWATER is going to be’, right? But no, we haven’t started that type of work yet. But I like the way you’re thinking, let’s take a step ahead.

Manju George 34:44
Yeah, because I’m sure that in a year or two, then you’ll have lots of enrollment, and then people are going to be asking, ‘what next?’.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 34:53
So that’s right, – have something ready – because that’s right… we’re looking for good post docs to do that. If anyone knows of some good post docs out there, let us know.

Manju George 35:02
Okay, okay, yeah. So Annie says it was great to see that there was an epithelial to mesenchymal transition in preclinical research. Is that showing up in BREAKWATER patients too?

Dr. Scott Kopetz 35:15
Good question. We don’t know. You know, we don’t have progression biopsies on patients on BREAKWATER, orany biopsies, for that matter. So as phase III, they tend to not have that same degree of translational research. So we’ll have blood, but we can’t always assess some of these transition states, like you mentioned Annie, in some of the samples that we’re collecting. So we’re going to rely on other ancillary, smaller phase II studies or preclinical models.

Manju George 35:48
Okay, I think we have gone through this really fast.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 35:53
Wonderful. Yeah, no, that’s great. Well, thanks so much to everyone for the time and interest and happy to answer any other questions that come up offline.

Manju George 36:03
Thank you so much.

Dr. Scott Kopetz 36:06
Thanks.

Manju George 36:07
Bye

Dr. Scott Kopetz 36:08
Bye bye.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Tie
ctDNA
Stage II
Trials

In this DocTalk recorded August 2022, Dr. Jeanne Tie from The Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia discusses her ctDNA DYNAMIC II trial with PALTOWN Scientific Director, Dr. Manju George.

Table of contents

00:00: Introduction
04:29: Minimal residual disease (MRD)
06:06: Duke’s staging
07:11: AJCC TNM staging
07:50: Adjuvant treatment for early-stage CRC & challenges
08:53: Things tried in stage II Colon cancer
11:00: Better risk stratification in stage II colon cancer
11:59: Clinical dilemma in stage II colon cancer
13:50: Other challenges
15:55: How to move the field forward?
16:30: Circulating tumor DNA, what is it?
18:12: CtDNA detects MRD
19:19: CtDNA dynamic reflects tumor burden in CRC
20:04: Post-op ctDNA detection and what it means
23:29: CtDNA dynamics — Real-time monitoring & its value
25:18: Serial ctDNA — What info does it provide about adjuvant chemo?
26:35: GALAXY trial results: Role of adjuvant chemo?
27:50: The DYNAMIC II trial
30:00: DYNAMIC II — CtDNA assay used
31:02: DYNAMIC II — Main study results
31:35: DYNAMIC II — Additional results
32:25: DYNAMIC II — Summary
35:00: DYNAMIC III — Design
36:19: Post-treatment ctDNA, role?
37:25: Trials for CtDNA positivity after Adj treatment
40:00: Q & A

More Videos

Early-stage BRAF V600E MSS colon cancer — What’s next after adjuvant treatment
Dr. Yaeger
2024
Treatment strategies for early-stage MSI-H colon cancer
Dr. Sharif
2023
CtDNA screening tests and the CIRCULATE-US trial
Dr. Lieu
2022
CtDNA DYNAMIC II clinical trial
Dr. Tie
2022