6084 Background: R/M ACC is a malignant neoplasm most commonly of salivary gland origin with no standard treatment. The impact of combined PD-1/CTLA-4 checkpoint blockade in R/M ACC is unknown. Methods: In a two-stage minimax phase II trial, pts with progressive R/M ACC (non-salivary primaries allowed) were enrolled and treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (1 cycle = 6 weeks). Imaging, using RECIST v1.1 response assessment, was scheduled to be performed approximately every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR = complete response [CR]+partial response [PR]) per RECIST v1.1. To detect a difference between an unacceptable ORR of 5% and a desirable ORR of 20% (one-sided type I error of 10%, power of 90%), at least 1 in the first 18 pts required an observed response. At least 4 responses of 32 total pts were needed to meet the primary endpoint. Treatment beyond progression of disease (PD) was allowed at the discretion of the investigator. A second cohort of pts with non-ACC salivary cancer is still accruing for separate analysis. Results: From 6/12/2017-6/20/2018, 32 pts were enrolled and evaluable for the primary endpoint. There was 1 confirmed PR in the first 18 pts, therefore enrollment of the second stage continued. ORR was 6% (2/32). One additional pt had an unconfirmed PR (-31% regression before CNS PD). For best overall response, there were 2 PRs, 15 SD, and 11 PD. Four pts never reached a first disease assessment: 3 due to death from clinical PD and 1 was removed for toxicity. Six pts discontinued the trial for toxicities (Grade 4 (G4) neutropenia/sepsis and G3 adrenal insufficiency (1), G2 hypophysitis (2), G3 arthritis > 7 days (1), G3 colitis (1), and G3 hepatitis/G4 creatinine kinase (CK) elevation (1)). The 2 confirmed PRs consisted of -73.1% and -58.4% regressions, with a duration of therapy of 18.4 and 7.8 months, respectively (treatment ongoing for both). Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary endpoint, though the responses observed were dramatic. Paired biopsy and peripheral blood samples will be analyzed to elucidate insights into mechanisms of response and resistance to dual checkpoint blockade. Clinical trial information: NCT03172624.

Background PET scan after induction chemotherapy before pre-operative chemoradiation and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma predicts outcomes. Some patients with progression on PET after induction chemotherapy had long-term overall survival (OS) when changed to alternative chemotherapy during radiation. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation prior to planned surgery; all had PET scan before and after induction chemotherapy. Results Of 201 patients, 113 (56%) were PET-responders (≥35% decrease in maximum standardized uptake value of tumor). All PET-responders received the same chemotherapy during radiation, while 38 (43%) of 88 PET non-responders changed chemotherapy. Of 152 operated patients, the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 15% in PET-responders vs. 3% in PET non-responders who did not change chemotherapy (p=0.046). Median progression-free survival (PFS; 18.9 vs. 9.6 months, p=0.003) and OS (37 vs. 25.3 months, p=0.02) were significantly better for PET responders vs. PET non-responders who did not change chemotherapy. Median PFS for PET non-responders who changed chemotherapy was 18.0 months and was superior to PET non-responders who did not change chemotherapy (p=0.015). For PET non-responders, the 5-year OS rates were 37% for those who changed chemotherapy vs. 25% for those who did not change chemotherapy (p=0.18). Conclusions PET scan after induction chemotherapy predicts for outcomes in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who undergo chemoradiation and surgery. Median PFS is improved and trends toward improved OS appear possible in PET non-responders who change chemotherapy during radiation. The fully-accrued CALGB 80803 study (NCT01333033) is evaluating this strategy.

ImportancePatients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) treated with radiotherapy often experience substantial toxic effects, even with modern techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has a potential advantage over IMRT due to reduced dose to the surrounding organs at risk; however, data are scarce given the limited availability and use of IMPT.ObjectiveTo compare toxic effects and oncologic outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC treated with IMPT vs IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic OPC who received curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT or IMRT at a single-institution tertiary academic cancer center from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, with follow-up through December 31, 2021.ExposuresIMPT or IMRT with or without chemotherapy.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were the incidence of acute and chronic (present after ≥6 months) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence (LRR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Fisher exact tests and χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between toxic effects and treatment modality (IMPT vs IMRT), and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare LRR, PFS, and OS between the 2 groups.ResultsThe study included 292 patients with OPC (272 [93%] with human papillomavirus [HPV]-p16–positive tumors); 254 (87%) were men, 38 (13%) were women, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 58-71 years). Fifty-eight patients (20%) were treated with IMPT, and 234 (80%) were treated with IMRT. Median follow-up was 26 months (IQR, 17-36 months). Most patients (283 [97%]) received a dose to the primary tumor of 70 Gy. Fifty-seven of the patients treated with IMPT (98%) and 215 of those treated with IMRT (92%) had HPV-p16–positive disease. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS (97% IMPT vs 91% IMRT; P = .18), PFS (82% IMPT vs 85% IMRT; P = .62), or LRR (5% IMPT vs 4% IMRT; P = .59). The incidence of acute toxic effects was significantly higher for IMRT compared with IMPT for oral pain of grade 2 or greater (42 [72%] IMPT vs 217 [93%] IMRT; P < .001), xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (12 [21%] IMPT vs 68 [29%] IMRT; P < .001), dysgeusia of grade 2 or greater (16 [28%] IMPT vs 134 [57%] IMRT; P < .001), grade 3 dysphagia (4 [7%] IMPT vs 29 [12%] IMRT; P < .001), mucositis of grade 3 or greater (10 [53%] IMPT vs 13 [70%] IMRT; P = .003), nausea of grade 2 or greater (0 [0%] IMPT vs 18 [8%] IMRT; P = .04), and weight loss of grade 2 or greater (22 [37%] IMPT vs 138 [59%] IMRT; P < .001). There were no significant differences in chronic toxic effects of grade 3 or greater, although there was a significant difference for chronic xerostomia of grade 2 or greater (6 IMPT [11%] vs 22 IMRT [10%]; P < .001). Four patients receiving IMRT (2%) vs 0 receiving IMPT had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for longer than 6 months.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, curative-intent radiotherapy with IMPT for nonmetastatic OPC was associated with a significantly reduced acute toxicity burden compared with IMRT, with few chronic toxic effects and favorable oncologic outcomes, including locoregional recurrence of only 5% at 2 years. Prospective randomized clinical trials comparing these 2 technologies and of patient-reported outcomes are warranted.

IMPORTANCE Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1 to 4 inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and suppress the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, with a potential for treatment-related retinopathy. To date, implications of FGFR inhibitor-associated ocular toxic effects are poorly described. Therefore, more detailed clinical descriptions of this ocular toxic effect could help explain visual symptoms while receiving drug therapy.OBJECTIVE To describe the clinical and morphologic characteristics of serous retinal disturbances associated with FGFR inhibitors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this retrospective case series, 146 patients receiving FGFR inhibitors as cancer treatment at a single tertiary referral center were included. This study included 40 eyes of 20 patients with retinopathy by optical coherence tomography (OCT). OCTs were obtained on the remaining patients and the results were judged normal. Patients were recruited from March 2012 to January 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Characteristics of treatment-emergent choroidal and retinalOCT abnormalities as compared with baseline OCT, associated with visual acuity at presentation and at fluid resolution.RESULTS A total of 20 of 146 patients (13.7%) exhibited FGFR inhibitor-associated retinopathy. Of these 20 patients, 11 (55%) were female, and the median (range) age was 62.6 (42.7-86.0) years. The median (range; mean) time from medication start to initial subretinal fluid detection was 21 (5-125; 32) days. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline logMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0 (0-0.1). At fluid accumulation, 11 eyes had decreased vision: the median (IQR) subgroup baseline BCVA was 0 (0-0.1); and the median (IQR) BCVA change from baseline to accumulation was −0.1 (−0.2 to −0.1). For 26 eyes (65%) with follow-up, the subretinal fluid resolved without medical intervention or drug interruption in all but 1 patient. At fluid resolution, the median (IQR) BCVA was 0.1 (0-0.1), and the change in median (IQR) BCVA from baseline to fluid resolution was 0 (−0.03 to 0). No patient discontinued drug therapy on account of their retinopathy.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE FGFR inhibitors result in subretinal fluid foci similar to other drugs that inhibit the MAPK pathway. In this series, FGFR inhibitors did not cause irreversible loss of vision; the retinopathy was self-limited and did not require medical intervention. These results may explain visual symptoms while taking the drug, although the precise frequency or magnitude of this adverse effect cannot be determined with certainty from this retrospective investigation.