Author
Patrick McKay Boland
Other affiliations: Fox Chase Cancer Center
Bio: Patrick McKay Boland is an academic researcher from Roswell Park Cancer Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Colorectal cancer & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 58 publications receiving 1407 citations. Previous affiliations of Patrick McKay Boland include Fox Chase Cancer Center.
Topics: Colorectal cancer, Medicine, Internal medicine, Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin
Papers
More filters
••
Johns Hopkins University1, Asan Medical Center2, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven3, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center4, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital5, Indiana University Health6, McGill University Health Centre7, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse8, Roswell Park Cancer Institute9, University of California, San Francisco10, Merck & Co.11, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center12, University of Paris13
TL;DR: Pembrolizumab is effective with a manageable safety profile in patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC, and the primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review.
Abstract: PURPOSEKEYNOTE-164 (NCT02460198) evaluated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated, metastatic, microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) colorect...
532 citations
••
TL;DR: Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with coloreCTal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy.
Abstract: Summary Background Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. Methods FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m 2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m 2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m 2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m 2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). Findings Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6–58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90–1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0–24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8–24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. Interpretation Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. Funding Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.
262 citations
••
TL;DR: This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules and pooled the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose).
Abstract: Summary Background Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. Methods In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02368886 . This study is fully accrued but remains active. Findings Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98–1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29–56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15–37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). Interpretation The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
158 citations
••
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, National Institutes of Health2, University of California, San Francisco3, Northwestern University4, Roswell Park Cancer Institute5, Medical University of South Carolina6, CHI Health7, Harvard University8, University of Wisconsin-Madison9, University of Colorado Denver10, Stanford University11, University of Florida12, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center13, University of Ottawa14, Rutgers University15, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill16, Baylor College of Medicine17, University of Pittsburgh18, University of Southern California19, Pompeu Fabra University20, Mayo Clinic21, University of Arizona22, Duke University23, University of California, Irvine24
TL;DR: The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments.
Abstract: An increasing number of studies are describing potential uses of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. Owing to this rapidly developing area of research, the Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces of the United States National Cancer Institute convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to summarize current data on the utility of ctDNA in the management of colorectal cancer and to provide guidance in promoting the efficient development and integration of this technology into clinical care. The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments. The panel also provides general guidelines with relevance for ctDNA-related research efforts, irrespective of indication.
147 citations
••
TL;DR: The contemporary understanding of the immune and molecular landscape in colorectal cancer is reviewed and ongoing clinical trials evaluating novel combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors are discussed.
Abstract: The recent success of anti-PD1 drugs in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with mismatch repair deficiency generated overwhelming enthusiasm for immunotherapy in the disease. However, patients with mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer represent only a small subset of the metastatic population. Current research focuses on advancing immunotherapy to earlier stages of the disease including adjuvant and first-line metastatic settings, and on inducing sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy through a combinatorial approach. Here, we review the contemporary understanding of the immune and molecular landscape in colorectal cancer and discuss ongoing clinical trials evaluating novel combination regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors.
112 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
University of California, San Francisco1, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory2, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai3, Oregon Health & Science University4, Wistar Institute5, University of Maryland, Baltimore County6, Huntsman Cancer Institute7, La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology8, University of Pennsylvania9, Harvard University10, University of Michigan11, Massachusetts Institute of Technology12
TL;DR: By parsing the unique classes and subclasses of tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) that exist within a patient’s tumor, the ability to predict and guide immunotherapeutic responsiveness will improve, and new therapeutic targets will be revealed.
Abstract: The clinical successes in immunotherapy have been both astounding and at the same time unsatisfactory. Countless patients with varied tumor types have seen pronounced clinical response with immunotherapeutic intervention; however, many more patients have experienced minimal or no clinical benefit when provided the same treatment. As technology has advanced, so has the understanding of the complexity and diversity of the immune context of the tumor microenvironment and its influence on response to therapy. It has been possible to identify different subclasses of immune environment that have an influence on tumor initiation and response and therapy; by parsing the unique classes and subclasses of tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) that exist within a patient's tumor, the ability to predict and guide immunotherapeutic responsiveness will improve, and new therapeutic targets will be revealed.
2,920 citations
••
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of South Florida2, Vanderbilt University3, City of Hope National Medical Center4, Fox Chase Cancer Center5, University Of Tennessee System6, Brigham and Women's Hospital7, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance8, Case Western Reserve University9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, Northwestern University11, Harvard University12, University of Nebraska Medical Center13, University of Utah14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
1,545 citations
••
TL;DR: Pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy when received as first-line therapy for MSI-H-dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.
Abstract: Background Programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade has clinical benefit in microsatellite-instability–high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair–deficient (dMMR) tumors after previous therapy. The efficac...
1,169 citations
••
TL;DR: Key studies in which systems and strategies to enhance, combine, bypass and image EPR-based tumor targeting, and how these approaches can be employed to enhance patient responses are summarized.
839 citations
••
TL;DR: Clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibition in CRC leading to regulatory approvals for the treatment of dMMR–MSI-H CRC is reviewed and new advances in expanding the efficacy of immunotherapy to early-stage CRC and CRC that is mismatch-repair-proficient and has low microsatellite instability (pMMR- MSI-L) are focused on.
Abstract: Following initial successes in melanoma treatment, immunotherapy has rapidly become established as a major treatment modality for multiple types of solid cancers, including a subset of colorectal cancers (CRCs). Two programmed cell death 1 (PD1)-blocking antibodies, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, have shown efficacy in patients with metastatic CRC that is mismatch-repair-deficient and microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H), and have been granted accelerated FDA approval. In contrast to most other treatments for metastatic cancer, immunotherapy achieves long-term durable remission in a subset of patients, highlighting the tremendous promise of immunotherapy in treating dMMR-MSI-H metastatic CRC. Here, we review the clinical development of immune checkpoint inhibition in CRC leading to regulatory approvals for the treatment of dMMR-MSI-H CRC. We focus on new advances in expanding the efficacy of immunotherapy to early-stage CRC and CRC that is mismatch-repair-proficient and has low microsatellite instability (pMMR-MSI-L) and discuss emerging approaches for targeting the immune microenvironment, which might complement immune checkpoint inhibition.
827 citations