Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently on of the most common cancer types worldwide and is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality (Bray et al., 2018). Regardless of increasing access to CRC screening programs in many EU countries, more precise methods for early non-invasive disease discovery are highly needed (Kalager et al., 200; Benard et al., 2018). Currently CRC screening programs are based on fecal occult blood tests and/or colonoscopy, but this approach lacks of specificity and a large number or premalignant and malignant alterations in the colon are being overlooked (Click et al., 2019). Furthermore, current CRC programs result in high rate of expensive and unnecessary colonoscopy procedures, that pose significant risk for absolute healthy individuals (Ladabaum et al., 2019).
It is known that microbiome takes part in cancer genesis, its development, progression and even to its response to different treatment methods. Recent publication proves that gut microbiota (GM) can be used as novel biomarker tool in some disease (Russo et al., 2022, Roda et al., 2020). However, in order to, know whether microbiota is altered, studies identifying its profile in CRC patients are highly needed.

Aims & Methods

The aim of this study was to identify microbiome profile of CRC patients using gut mucosa biopsy and blood plasma samples.
In total, 313 individuals were included in this study, 104 of them were patients with CRC, 101 patients with adenomatous polyps (AP), and 108 were control individuals. Biopsies were taken from damaged mucosa during colonoscopy. Extracted DNA from all the samples was used to V1–V2 region of bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplification and sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq platform. To construct sample-similarity matrices abundances of taxonomic ranks in each sample type were used by applying Bray-Curtis algorithm. For significant differences between groups Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) and Mann-Whitney test followed by false-discovery rate test were used.

Results

Comparison between the global tissues bacterial assemblages revealed that the global structures at all taxonomic ranks were significantly different between control, CRC, and AP groups. Analysis revealed list of bacteria at the different taxonomic levels, the number of which was statistically significantly different between the groups. Moreover, analysis revealed bacteria that were associated with such clinical data as TNM classification, stage, and grade.

Conclusion

The global circulating and tissues microbiome profile of CRC and AP patients differs from that of the control group. Based on tissue and blood microbial profile it is possible to distinguish healthy state from CRC or AP. Mucosa tissue microbiome turns to be 20 times richer than blood microbiome. In CRC case bacterial richness and diversity decreases. Also there is distinct list of bacteria differed between CRC and control groups that could presumably be used as clinical biomarkers for CRC.

References

Bénard F, Barkun AN. Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations. World journal of gastroenterology. 2018; 24(1): 124. doi:
10.3748/wjg.v24.i1.124.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492
Click B, Pinsky PF, Hickey T, et al. Association of Colonoscopy Adenoma Findings With Long-term Colorectal Cancer Incidence. JAMA, 2018; 319(19): 2021-31. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.5809
Kalager M, Bretthauer M, et al. Improving cancer screening programs. Science. 2020; 367 (6474): 143-144; doi: 10.1126/science.aay3156
Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A, et al. Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years. Gastroenterology. 2019; 157(1):137-148. doi:
10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.023
Senore C, Basu P, Anttila A, et al. Performance of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the European Union Member States: Data From the Second European Screening Report. Gut, 2019; 68(7):1232-44. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317293
Roda G, Chien Ng S, et al. Crohn's disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Apr 2;6(1):22. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0156-2.
Russo E. The gut microbiota as a biomarker in epilepsy. Neurobiol Dis. 2022 Feb;163:105598. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2021.105598

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Introduction

Complex perianal fistulas represent one of the most challenging manifestations of Crohn’s disease. Combined surgical and medical therapy with biologic drugs represents today the first-line treatment option, but its efficacy does not exceed 60% in terms of healing. Recently, new therapeutic approaches, such as autologous microfragmented adipose tissue (M-Fat) injection, have shown promising results. Indeed, a recent non-profit prospective pilot study on 15 patients has demonstrated that the local injection of M-Fat is a safe and promising “rescue therapy” for patients with multiresistant complex fistulizing Crohn’s disease (PCD), with a 66.7% rate of combined remission in such difficult patients. It has to be highlighted that the M-Fat injection is minimally invasive, with less risk of sphincteric damage and can be carried out in day-surgery setting.

Aims & Methods

The primary aim of this multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial (ATTIC) is to evaluate the efficacy of the infiltration of M-Fat in the healing of perianal complex fistulas not-responding to treatment with biologics. Consecutive patients referring to the 6 investigation Centers for surgical treatment of persistent complex fistulizing PCD refractory to biosurgical approach were assessed for eligibility. After baseline pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, those included were submitted to surgical drainage with “cone-like” fistulectomy, and then randomized to receive a 15 to 20 cc local injection, at the internal orifice level and along fistula tracts, of M-Fat obtained by a lipoaspiration and processed with an enzyme-free technology (treatment group), or a suture placement and injection of 15 cc of saline solution at the internal orifice (control group). Clinical follow-up were conducted at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks; at 24 weeks after surgery, pelvic magnetic resonance was obtained. Success was defined as “combined remission”, combination of clinical (absence of drainage upon gentle finger compression) and radiological healing (absence of residual collections > 3 mm). Clinical remission was defined as clinical healing of all external openings not confirmed at radiological assessment.

Results

An overall 92 patients were screened, and 66 (33 per group) completed the 24-week follow-up. A statistically significant difference in favour of the treatment group in terms of combined remission emerged at the primary endpoint at 24-week follow-up (control group, 18.18%; treatment group: 57.58%; p = 0.0020). No significant differences in clinical outcome measures were encountered at any of the other follow-up points. No significant differences emerged between the groups in terms of recurrence rate, complication rate, and number of adverse events. Clinical remission was 63.64% in the treatment group compared to 51.52% in the control group with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

This multicentre double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrates that the intraoperative injection of M-Fat, associated with surgical complete drainage of perianal sepsis, is safe, effective, and reproducible in healing complex multirefractory perianal Crohn's disease, while improving the quality of life and significantly reducing the risk of definitive oostomy.

Introduction

​​​​​Guselkumab (GUS) is a selective dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor that potently blocks interleukin 23 (IL-23) and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23¹. In patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), the GALAXI-2 and GALAXI-3 Phase 3 studies established short- and long-term efficacy of GUS compared to placebo, and statistical superiority to ustekinumab (UST) in prespecified analyses of pooled data at Week (WK)48². We subsequently developed an endoscopic clustering method using Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) segmental scores in patients from GALAXI 2/3 which revealed higher endoscopic remission rates with GUS compared with UST at WK12 and WK48 in pts characterized by ileal disease and strictured right colon³. Here we report molecular differentiation of GUS compared with UST in isolated ileal disease based on serum pharmacodynamic (PD) markers and tissue transcriptomics in CD using pooled samples from the GALAXI studies.

Aims & Methods

Patients (pts) in GALAXI-2 (n=508) and GALAXI-3 (n=513) were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive GUS 200mg IV q4w x3 → GUS 200mg SC q4w, GUS 200mg IV q4w x3→ GUS 100mg SC q8w, UST ⁓6mg/kg IV x1 → UST 90mg SC q8w or placebo IV q4w x3 (PBO). Serum biomarkers were measured in a subset of (n=50) pts per group at WK0, WK4 and WK12 using a proinflammatory panel and a high sensitivity IL-22 assay. Matched ileal and rectal biopsies were evaluated at WK0, WK12 and WK48 in a subset of 344 pts representative of the full study population. Transcriptional profiling was performed with bulk RNA sequencing (RNAseq) using transcriptional modules. Analysis of treatment effects was performed using molecularly inflamed samples (biopsy molecular inflammation score [bMIS]⁴ >0) from segments with SES-CD >0 at baseline. Serum proteins and transcriptional modules were evaluated for differential expression stratified by isolated ileal, isolated colonic and ileocolonic disease defined during screening.

Results

In pts with isolated ileal disease, GUS decreased serum protein levels of IL-22, IL-17A and IFNγ at WK12 while UST only reduced IFNγ. In ileal tissue, GUS significantly altered inflammatory modules at WK12 and WK48 including reductions in neutrophil, inflamed epithelium, IL-23/Th17 and inflammatory fibroblast biology compared with minimal changes observed with UST, which only significantly reduced neutrophil, plasma cell and macrophage modules at WK48. In contrast, in pts with isolated colonic or ileocolonic disease, both GUS and UST decreased IL-23-dependent serum proteins towards normal levels compared with an independent cohort of healthy control sera. In rectal tissue, both GUS and UST significantly altered key inflammatory transcriptional modules in rectal biopsies at WK12 and WK48. Overall, greater effects of GUS vs UST were observed in ileal tissue at WK12 and at WK48 in transcriptional modules associated with decreasing disease-related features and restoring epithelial health than UST.

Conclusion

GUS decreased IL-23-dependent serum proteins and improved tissue transcriptional profiles in pts with isolated ileal disease while UST only reduced serum IFNγ and had a minimal impact on IL-23-dependent transcriptional modules. These data suggest potential differences in IL-23 and IL-12 pathway enrichment in isolated ileal disease where inhibition of IL-23p19 subunit with GUS achieved greater molecular treatment effects early which were maintained through WK48 and associated with differential clinical outcomes in patients with isolated ileal disease.

References

1. Sachen K, Hammaker D, Sarabia I, et al. Guselkumab binding to CD64+ IL-23–producing myeloid cells enhances potency for neutralizing IL-23 signaling. Frontiers in Immunology. 2025; doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1532852
2. Panaccione R, Danese S, Feagan BE, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease: results of the GALAXI 2 & 3 phase 3 studies. Gastroenterology. 2024; 5 (Supplement): p1057b
3. Richards D, Seridi L, Sohn, K, et al. Guselkumab shows higher endoscopic remission rates than ustekinumab in patients characterized by isolated ileal and srtictured right colon Crohn’s disease: Post-hos analysis of GALAXI 2/3 Ph3 trials. DDW 2025 Abs #4253526; poster.
4. Argmann C, Hou R, Ungaro, R, et al. A biopsy and blood-based molecular biomarker of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2022; 0:1-17.

Disclosure

DR, KS, MZ, RP, BM, NAT, MV, DC and PB are current or former employees of Janssen and may hold stock in Johnson & Johnson.
WR has served as a speaker for AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Janssen, Galapagos Medice, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Sobi, Takeda, as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, AOP Orphan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calyx, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Index Pharma, Janssen, Medahead, Microbiotica, Pfizer, Takeda; as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, and has received research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda.

Introduction

Fistulizing perianal Crohn’s disease (CD) remains a significant therapeutic challenge, with limited randomized controlled trials to date, restricted so far to infliximab and, more recently, filgotinib. The USTAP (NCT04496063) trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UST in patients with actively draining perianal fistulas through a multicenter randomized controlled design.

Aims & Methods

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial enrolled adult patients with active draining fistulizing perianal CD. Between April 2020 and June 2024, eligible patients with persistent fistula drainage were randomized 1:1, after seton placement when necessary, to receive either UST (6 mg/kg IV at baseline followed by 90 mg SC at week 8, then every 8 weeks) or placebo. Steroids were allowed at baseline with a standardized steroid taper. Seton removal was planned at week 6. The primary endpoint was combined clinical remission (absence of drainage from all external fistula openings) and radiological remission (defined as the absence of abscesses >2 cm confirmed by blinded central pelvic MRI) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included clinical remission, radiological remission, changes in disease activity (CDAI, PDAI), IBD-DI, and safety. Endpoints were independently reviewed by a blinded adjudication committee. Randomization was stratified by prior anti-TNF exposure and study center. The intended sample size was 73 patients per group to detect a 20% difference in remission rates (power 80%, alpha 5%). Due to slow recruitment, the study was discontinued in June 2024 after randomizing 32 patients, without unblinding the study data. Patients were subsequently followed until week 48.

Results

Thirty-three patients consented to participate with 32 patients (women: 41%; median age: 42) ultimately randomized (UST: 16; placebo: 16) across 10 French centers. Seventy percent had prior anti-TNF exposure (50% in UST arm, 50% in placebo arm), and 23% had previously failed two or more anti-TNF therapies. At baseline, 84% had one draining fistula, 16% had two, and 25% had associated abscesses. At week 12, combined remission was achieved in 62% in the UST group versus 25% in the placebo group (Table). Clinical remission was observed in 69% in the UST group vs. 31% in the placebo group, while radiological remission rates were 87.5% in the UST group and 75% in the placebo group. In the UST arm, mean change in CDAI, PDAI and IBD-DI from baseline to week 12 was -56.3, -2.2 and -4.9, (vs. -9.8, -1.6 and +4.9, in the placebo arm, respectively). Adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE) were similar in both treatment groups: 23 AE (62%) occurred in the placebo group, and 14 AE (38%) in the UST group. Six SAEs were reported overall, including two gastrointestinal events, one renal disorder, and one anal abscess. Two patients in the placebo group discontinued study by week 6 due to SAEs (an anal abscess and a peri-ileal abscess).

Conclusion

In this trial, where the majority of patients had prior anti-TNF exposure, the observed short-term clinical benefit of UST supports its use in fistulizing perianal CD.

Disclosure

This work was supported by a grant from Johnson & Johnson
Pauline Wils : Johnson & johnson, Takeda, Amgen, Abbvie, Celltrion, Ferring
S Nancey: Abbvie, Johnson and Johnson, Fresenius Kabi, Biogen, Takeda, Medac, Celltrion, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, Lilly,Ferring, Amgen
E. Messmer: No conflict of interest for this study
A Bourreille: Johnson and Johnson
A Buisson: Consulting fees from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biocon, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare, CTMA, Ferring, Galapagos/AlfaSigma, GutyCare/Resilience Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nexbiome, Pileje, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda et Tillotts. Lecture fees from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion Healthcare Galapagos/AlfaSigma, Ferring, Janssen, Lilly, Mayoli-Spindler, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Norgine, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tillotts and Vifor Pharma. Research grants/fundings from: Abbvie, Celltrion Healthcare, Janssen, Lessaffre, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Takeda
L Caillo: No conflict of interest for this study
L Vuitton: abbvie amgen J&J Pfizer Takeda Lilly MSD Mayoli Ferring Dr Falk Alpha Sigma
R Altwegg: Abbvie, Johnson ans Johnson, Takeda, Pfizer, Lilly, Alphasigma, Celltrion, Amgen, Biogen, Sandoz, Ferring
X Hébuterne reports clinical research funding from Abbvie, Abivax, Amgen, Celltrion, Lilly, Fresenius-Kabi, J&J, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Prometheus, MSD, Roche, Takeda, serving on advisory boards for Abbvie, Biogen, Celltrion, Lilly, J&J, and participating in lectures and educational activities for Abbvie, Amgen, Celltrion, Lilly, Fresenius-Kabi, Galapagos, J&J, MSD, Nestlé Health Sciences, Nutricia, Pfizer, Tillots, Takeda.
O Ernst: No conflict of interest for this study
P Meunier: No conflict of interest for this study
V Laurent: No conflict of interest for this study
D Laharie: received board and lecture fees from: Abbvie, Alfasigma, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda
E Vicaut: No conflict of interest for this study
L Peyrin-Biroulet: Consulting : Abbvie, Abivax, Adacyte, Alimentiv, Amgen, Applied Molecular Transport, Arena, Banook, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Connect Biopharm, Cytoki Pharma, Enthera, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, IAC Image Analysis, Index Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Mopac, Morphic, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Oncodesign Precision Medicine, ONO Pharma, OSE Immunotherapeuthics, Pandion Therapeuthics, Par' Immune, Pfizer, Prometheus, Protagonist, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Satisfay, Takeda, Telavant, Theravance, Thermo Fischer, Tigenix, Tillots, Viatris, Vectivbio, Ventyx, Ysopia ; lecture : Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Celltrion, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda, Tillots, Viatris

Introduction

The phase 2b GALAXI 1 and phase 3 GALAXI 2&3 studies evaluated guselkumab (GUS), a dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor, in participants (pts) with moderately to severely active CD.¹ Pts treated with ustekinumab (UST) who met inadequate response criteria during the long-term extension (LTE) could cross over to GUS 200 mg SC q4w. Here, we present efficacy and safety results in pts who received GUS after experiencing an inadequate response to UST in the pooled GALAXI LTE.

Aims & Methods

Individuals with prior inadequate response or intolerance to UST were excluded from GALAXI; however, during the LTE, pts treated with UST 90 mg SC q8w who met inadequate treatment response criteria (not in clinical response [≥100-point reduction in CDAI score from baseline or CDAI<150] and CDAI ≥220) between Wks 52-80 of LTE were eligible for a treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w, without IV induction. Clinical response and clinical remission (CDAI<150) were both assessed 16 weeks after treatment switch. Endoscopic response (≥50% improvement from baseline SES-CD or SES-CD≤2) and endoscopic remission (SES-CD≤4 and ≥2-point reduction from baseline and no subscore >1 in any individual component) were assessed at Wk 96. Safety was assessed through Wk 96.

Results

In total, 80 pts treated with UST underwent treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w maintenance therapy due to meeting inadequate treatment response criteria between Wks 52-80 of the LTE. Of these 80 pts, 75 were included in the efficacy analyses (baseline mean age, 35.2yrs; male, 64.0%; mean CD disease duration, 8.21yrs; mean CDAI, 291.5; mean SES-CD, 12.8; history of inadequate response/intolerance to biologics [BIO-IR], 60.0%).
The proportions of pts achieving clinical response and clinical remission 16 weeks after treatment switch from UST to GUS 200 mg SC q4w were 61.3% and 52.0%, respectively. These results were comparable to the proportions of pts treated with GUS 200 mg IV q4w induction in the BIO-IR subgroup of the total LTE population who achieved clinical response and clinical remission at Wk 12 (61.7% and 46.7%, respectively).
The proportions of pts achieving endoscopic response and endoscopic remission at Wk 96 (ie, ~1 year after treatment switch from UST to GUS 200 mg SC q4w) were 49.3% and 30.7%, respectively. These results were similar to the proportions of pts in the BIO-IR subgroup receiving GUS 200 mg SC q4w maintenance who achieved endoscopic response and endoscopic remission at Wk 48 (57.2% and 35.5%, respectively).
Safety results are summarized in the Table.

Table. Safety Summary From Treatment Switch Through Week 96

Conclusion

Among pts who experienced inadequate response to UST in the LTE, more than half achieved clinical remission 16 weeks after treatment switch to GUS 200 mg SC q4w, and approximately 50% were in endoscopic response ~1 year after treatment switch. These data suggest pts with an inadequate treatment response to UST may benefit from GUS treatment. Results should be interpreted considering that pts received GUS SC maintenance therapy directly without IV induction. Key safety event rates were consistent with the known safety profile of GUS in approved indications.

References

1) Sachen K, Hammaker D, Sarabia I, et al. Frontiers in Immunology. 2025; doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1532852.

Disclosure

AA reports potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, DiaSorin, Eli Lilly, Gilead, IBD Horizons, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and TLL Pharmaceuticals
DW reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda
RL reports having received advisory board fees from AbbVie, Aspen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chiesi, Ferring, Glutagen, Hospira, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, and Takeda; received research grants from Celltrion, Shire, Janssen, Takeda, Joanna Tiddy grant from University of Sydney, McCusker Charitable Trust, Gastroenterological Society of Australia, NHMRC, Gutsy Group, and Pfizer
RVR, WvD, and CB are employees of Johnson & Johnson and own company stock/stock options.
TH received grant support from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, JIMRO Co. Ltd., Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co. Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Boston Scientific Corporation, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., consulting fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Pfizer Inc., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and lecture fee from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, AbbVie GK, EA pharma Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., JIMRO Co., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Pfizer Inc. Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
JP reports consultancy fees/honorarium from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Athos, Atomwise, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celsius, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mirum, Nimbus, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus, Protagonist, Revolo, Sanofi, Sorriso, Surrozen, Takeda, and Wasserman, and has served on a data safety monitoring board for Alimentiv, Mirum, Sorriso, Sanofi, and Surrozen.