Biweekly cetuximab plus irinotecan as second-line chemotherapy for patients with irinotecan-refractory and KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer according to epidermal growth factor receptor expression status

Cetuximab every 2 weeks versus standard weekly dosing administration schedule

Cetuximab every 2 weeks (Q2W) dosing schedule is approved by the US FDA and by the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Phase II trials have found comparable efficacy and safety for the weekly (Q1W) and Q2W schedules, and real-world studies have shown noninferiority of the Q2W compared with the Q1W schedule. Several guidelines recommend cetuximab Q2W administration as an alternative to the Q1W dosing schedule. Cetuximab Q2W can be administered with a Q2W dose of chemotherapy, making it a more convenient option to the Q1W schedule, potentially resulting in reduced costs for administration, increased flexibility for clinical staff and improved patient adherence.

Oncological Treatment-Related Fatigue in Oncogeriatrics: A Scoping Review

Simple Summary

Fatigue in older patients has multiple etiologies, as this symptom may be cancer-related, treatment-related, age-related, or part of frailty syndrome. Physicians need to identify this symptom and understand its risk factors but also evaluate the risk/benefit ratio of cancer treatments considering the risk of impairing the patient’s quality of life. This scoping review was aimed to present the level of information currently available on any-grade fatigue and grade 3 or more fatigue for each cancer treatment regimen, either in general or in older populations, for the most prevalent tumors.

Abstract

Fatigue is a highly prevalent symptom in both cancer patients and the older population, and it contributes to quality-of-life impairment. Cancer treatment-related fatigue should thus be included in the risk/benefit assessment when introducing any treatment, but tools are lacking to a priori estimate such risk. This scoping review was designed to report the current evidence regarding the frequency of fatigue for the different treatment regimens proposed for the main cancer indications, with a specific focus on age-specific data, for the following tumors: breast, ovary, prostate, urothelium, colon, lung and lymphoma. Fatigue was most frequently reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) versions 3 to 5. A total of 324 regimens were analyzed; data on fatigue were available for 217 (67%) of them, and data specific to older patients were available for 35 (11%) of them; recent pivotal trials have generally reported more fatigue grades than older studies, illustrating increasing concern over time. This scoping review presents an easy-to-understand summary that is expected to provide helpful information for shared decisions with patients regarding the anticipation and prevention of fatigue during each cancer treatment.

Cetuximab plus irinotecan administered biweekly with reduced infusion time to heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and related RAS and BRAF mutation status

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is treated with cetuximab 250 mg/m2 administered weekly over 1 hour or biweekly (q2w) over 3.5 hours when combined with irinotecan. This prospective study investigated cetuximab 500 mg/m2 plus irinotecan 180 mg/m2 administered q2w over 1.5 hours independent of RAS or BRAF mutation status in mCRC patients in a third-line setting. The intention-to-treat population included 181 patients. No patients had complete response, 18% had partial responses (PR) and 48% stable disease (SD). For cetuximab, a relative dose intensity of ≥90% was reached in 78% and for irinotecan in 67% of the patients. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were pain (17%), fatigue (9%), neutropenia (8%), diarrhea (8%), rash (8%), infection (7%) and hypersensitivity (3%). No deaths occurred. Next-generation sequencing in 96.7% of the patients revealed that 50.3% had RAS and BRAFV600E wild type (WT), with a mutation type (MT) in 45.1% of the RAS and 4.4% of the BRAFV600E genes. In patients with RAS-WT and RAS-MT tumors, a PR was obtained in 32% and 4% (P = .000003) and an SD in 43% and 53%, respectively, with a superior PFS (6.2 vs 3.7 months; hazard ratio [HR] 2.12, P = .00001) and OS (12.9 vs 8.8 months; HR 1.71, P = .0008). Treatment efficacy was poor in 7.4% of patients with an RAS mutation outside KRAS exon 2 and in 38% of patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations. Administration of cetuximab and irinotecan q2w, shortening treatment time from 3.5 to 1.5 hours, is recommended as standard therapy.

Colon cancer therapy by focusing on colon cancer stem cells and their tumor microenvironment

Despite many advances and optimization in colon cancer treatment, tumor recurrence and metastases make the development of new therapies necessary. Colon cancer stem cells (CCSCs) are considered as the main triggering factor of cancer progression, recurrence, and metastasis. CCSCs as a result of accumulated genetic and epigenetic alterations and also complex interconnection with the tumor microenvironment (TME) can evolve and convert to full malignant cells. Mounting evidence suggests that in cancer therapy both CCSCs and non-CCSCs in TME have to be regarded to break through the limitation of current therapies. In this regard, stem cell capabilities of some non-CCSCs may arise inside the TME condition. Therefore, a deep knowledge of regulatory mechanisms, heterogeneity, specific markers, and signaling pathways of CCSCs and their interconnection with TME components is needed to improve the treatment of colorectal cancer and the patient's life quality. In this review, we address current different targeted therapeutic options that target cell surface markers and signaling pathways of CCSCs and other components of TME. Current challenges and future perspectives of colon cancer personalized therapy are also provided here. Taken together, based on the deep understanding of biology of CCSCs and using three-dimensional culture technologies, it can be possible to reach successful colon cancer eradication and improvise combination targeted therapies against CCSCs and TME.

Multicenter open-label randomized phase II study of second-line panitumumab and irinotecan with or without fluoropyrimidines in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (PACIFIC study)

This phase II clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan and panitumumab treatment (IRI + Pmab) with that of irinotecan, fluoropyrimidines and panitumumab treatment (control) in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. In addition, early predictive markers of treatment efficacy were explored. Eighty patients were planned to be recruited. Due to a slow accrual rate, only 48 patients were recruited from 2012 to 2016, of which 23 were allocated to the control group and 25 were allocated to the IRI + Pmab group. The median progression-free survival was 254 days (95% confidence interval, 159-306) for control, and 190 days (95% confidence interval, 159-213) for IRI + Pmab (log-rank test, P = 0.26). The response rate without confirmation was 21.7% (5/23) for control and 40.0% (10/25) for IRI + Pmab. Neutropenia, leukopenia, and anorexia were the most common Grade 3/4 adverse events, and several early drop-outs from the treatment protocol were observed in the control group. As for the biomarkers, carcinoembryonic antigen and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) smoothly declined immediately after the initial dosing in patients with a partial response or stable disease. After starting treatment, LDH-1 and - 2 increased, while LDH-4 and - 5 decreased, irrespective of tumor response. However, exceptions were frequent. In conclusion, this study failed to prove the safety and efficacy of irinotecan and panitumumab treatment due to insufficient patient accrual. Although LDH and its isozymes changed after initiation of treatment, their ability to predict the tumor response may not surpass that of carcinoembryonic antigen levels.The University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry: UMIN000007658.

Capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine in maintenance treatment for untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis in Chinese postmenopausal women

Background

Capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance treatment after 6 cycles of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CAPOXB) has demonstrated clinical activity and failure to compromise quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC) in a previous phase 3 CAIRO3 study. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAP-B versus CAP in maintenance treatment after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction therapy in Chinese postmenopausal women with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC.

Methods

During 2012–2016, prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to evaluate cohorts with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC and stable disease or better after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction treatment. After induction treatment, all patients received either CAP-B or capecitabine (CAP) as maintenance treatment. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were the primary endpoints. Safety was the secondary endpoint.

Results

A total of 263 women with untreated characterised KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC and stable disease or better after 6-cycle CAPOXB induction treatment were included for the evaluation of efficacy and safety (CAP-B-treated cohort, n = 130 and CAP-treated cohort, n = 133). The mPFS was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6–17.4) and 9.2 months (95% CI, 3.6–14.8) for the CAP-B-treated and CAP-treated cohorts, respectively (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32~0.85; P = 0.013). The mOS was 16.2 months (95% CI, 11.4–18.7) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 10.6–15.5) for the CAP-B- and CAP-treated cohorts, respectively (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51~0.94; P = 0.022). The CAP-B-treated cohort experienced significantly more grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea (P < 0.001) than the CAP-treated cohort.

Conclusions

CAP-B maintenance treatment after 6-cycle CAPOX-B in Chinese postmenopausal women with untreated KRAS exon 2 wild-type MCC is poorer tolerated but has a more modest, if any, benefit compared with that of CAP maintenance treatment.

Survival in signet ring cell carcinoma varies based on primary tumor location: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the survival of patients with signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) based on primary tumor location.

METHODS

Patient data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1988-2012) with ≥200 cases per tumor location. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate prognostic factors of cause-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

We identified 24,171 patients. Of the patients, 63.4% had gastric SRCC, followed by colon (18.2%), esophageal (5.0%), rectal (3.5%), lung (3.1%), pancreatic (1.8%), breast (1.5%), bladder (1.3%), small intestine (1.1%), and gallbladder SRCC (1.0%). The 5-year CSS was 22.1%, 69.0%, 33.2%, 28.1%, 24.8%, 16.1%, 13.6%, 12.6%, 11.0%, 6.4% in patients with gastric, breast, colon, rectum, bladder, small intestine, esophageal, gallbladder, lung, and pancreatic SRCC, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that the primary tumor location was an independent prognostic factor of survival. Patients with lung, small intestine, and bladder SRCC had a comparable CSS to gastric SRCC, while breast and colorectal SRCC had better survival than gastric SRCC. Esophageal, gallbladder, and pancreatic SRCC were significantly associated with poor CSS compared with gastric SRCC.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a major difference in survival of SRCC based on the primary tumor locations.

Exploitation of Gene Expression and Cancer Biomarkers in Paving the Path to Era of Personalized Medicine

Cancer therapy agents have been used extensively as cytotoxic drugs against tissue or organ of a specific type of cancer. With the better understanding of molecular mechanisms underlying carcinogenesis and cellular events during cancer progression and metastasis, it is now possible to use targeted therapy for these molecular events. Targeted therapy is able to identify cancer patients with dissimilar genetic defects at cellular level for the same cancer type and consequently requires individualized approach for treatment. Cancer therapy begins to shift steadily from the traditional approach of “one regimen for all patients” to a more individualized approach, through which each patient will be treated specifically according to their specific genetic defects. Personalized medicine accordingly requires identification of indicators or markers that guide in the decision making of such therapy to the chosen patients for more effective therapy. Cancer biomarkers are frequently used in clinical practice for diagnosis and prognosis, as well as identification of responsive patients and prediction of treatment response of cancer patient. The rapid breakthrough and development of microarray and sequencing technologies is probably the main tool for paving the way toward “individualized biomarker-driven cancer therapy” or “personalized medicine”. In this review, we aim to provide an updated knowledge and overview of the current landscape of cancer biomarkers and their role in personalized medicine, emphasizing the impact of genomics on the implementation of new potential targeted therapies and development of novel cancer biomarkers in improving the outcome of cancer therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited benefits and in many cases constitutes a treatment with high toxicity. The use of specific molecular biological treatments with monoclonal antibodies (MA) has been shown to be relevant, particularly for its potential for increasing the response rate of the host to the tumour, as these have molecular targets present in the cancerous cells and their microenvironment thereby blocking their development. The combination of MA and CT can bring a significant increase in the rate of resectability of metastases, the progression-free survival (PFS), and the global survival (GS) in MCRC patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of MA in the treatment of MCRC.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out with a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing the use of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab in the treatment of MCRC.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials were selected. The quality of the evidence on the question was considered moderate and data from eight randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The GS and PFS were greater in the groups which received the MA associated with CT, however, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups (mean of 17.7 months versus 17.1 months; mean difference of 1.09 (CI: 0.10-2.07); p = 0.84; and 7.4 versus 6.9 months. mean difference of 0.76 (CI: 0.08-1.44); p = 0.14 respectively). The meta-analysis was not done for any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The addition of MA to CT for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer does not prolong GS and PFS.

Pragmatic issues in biomarker evaluation for targeted therapies in cancer

Predictive biomarkers are becoming increasingly important tools in drug development and clinical research. The importance of using both guidelines for specimen acquisition and analytical methods for biomarker measurements that are standardized has become recognized widely as an important issue, which must be addressed in order to provide high-quality, validated assays. Herein, we review the major challenges in biomarker validation processes, including pre-analytical (sample-related), analytical, and post-analytical (data-related) aspects of assay development. Recommendations for improving biomarker assay development and method validation are proposed to facilitate the use of predictive biomarkers in clinical trials and the practice of oncology.

Current status of pharmacological treatment of colorectal cancer

AIM: To review the clinical trials for the development in drugs for chemotherapeutic treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS: A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing drugs for the treatment of CRC or adenomatous polyps from www.clinicaltrials.gov. Various online medical databases were searched for relevant publications.

RESULTS: Combination treatment regimens of standard drugs with newer agents have been shown to improve overall survival, disease-free survival, time to progression and quality of life compared to that with standard drugs alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The FOLFOXIRI regimen has been associated with a significantly higher response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival compared to the FOLFIRI regimen.

CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin plus intravenous bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin has been shown to be superior for disease-free survival when compared to intravenous bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, oxaliplatin regimens were more likely to result in successful surgical resections. First line treatment with cetuximab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan has been found to reduce the risk of metastatic progression in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases. The addition of bevacizumab has been shown to significantly increase overall and progression-free survival when given in combination with standard therapy.

Anti-EGFR MoAb treatment in colorectal cancer: limitations, controversies, and contradictories

Anti-epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MoAb) treatment for chemotherapy refractory or metastatic colorectal cancer has obtained great achievement. However, not every colorectal patient responds to such molecular-targeted agent well. Biomarkers associated with anti-EGFR resistance are not limited to KRAS mutation up to now. It was recently reported that cross-talking molecular effectors interacted with EGFR-related pathway were also negative predictor for anti-EGFR treatment. However, the limited data, controversial results, and contradictories between in vitro and clinical studies restrict the clinical application of these new biomarkers. Although the current theory of tumor microenvironment supported the application of multi-target treatment, the results from the clinical studies were less than expected. Moreover, WHO or RECIST guideline for response assessment in anti-EGFR MoAb treatment was also queried by recent AIO KRK-0306 trial. This review focuses on these controversies, contradictories, and limitations, in order to uncover the unmet needs in current status of anti-EGFR MoAb treatment in colorectal cancer.

Epidermal growth factor receptor: pathway, therapies, and pipeline

BACKGROUND

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway is important in tumor growth, survival, and metastasis and is now the target of several therapeutic agents.

OBJECTIVES

This paper seeks to review the EGFR pathway, the study and use of EGFR-directed agents in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), and related new drug development.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for English-language articles by MeSH and title terms of EGFR published from 2006 to 2013, using the limits of clinical trials as well as reviews. Reference lists were assessed for relevant articles, and guidelines were searched. Clinicaltrials.gov and meeting abstracts were queried for investigational agents. Eligible papers included those concerning EGFR biology, NSCLC or CRC studies involving EGFR-directed agents, and/or investigational drugs targeting EGFR and/or associated pathways.

RESULTS

The activity of oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against EGFR has improved survival in NSCLC, and these agents particularly effective in cancers with an EGFR mutation. Resistance to TKIs is most commonly related to a second, T790M, mutation, or to MET amplification, with newer agents directed against these mechanisms. Conversely, in CRC, TKIs have been ineffective, whereas monoclonal antibodies have improved survival. Both primary and secondary KRAS mutations in CRC abrogate mAb effectiveness. Several targets, including MET, BRAF, and PI3K, may serve useful in combination with anti-EGFR drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Exploitation of EGFR-directed therapies has offered improvement in survival and quality of life in NSCLC and CRC. New therapies directed at EGFR may offer further improvements. However, resistance mechanisms suggest that combination therapies or multitargeted agents will be crucial in making significant future advances.

Impact of cetuximab in current treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting the EGFR, which has proven effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), wild-type Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS).

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this manuscript is to discuss the current impact of cetuximab in the most important scenarios of mCRC. We review the currently available data regarding the role of other biomarkers, such as the mutational status of neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog in identifying patients who could benefit most from anti-EGFR. In addition, a review is included of the most relevant clinical trials that have assessed the effectiveness of cetuximab in the management of patients with potentially resectable metastatic disease and in the first-line treatment of wild-type KRAS mCRC, as well as the impact of this anti-EGFR agent on patient quality of life.

EXPERT OPINION

Cetuximab has had a progressive clinical development from the earliest to the later stages of the evolution of mCRC and has been consolidated as a therapeutic option for all scenarios of unresectable disease. Patient selection by analysis of KRAS mutations has been a fundamental event to increase efficiency, being a dynamic process that continues in assessment. There are few comparative data with other biological agents in combination with chemotherapy, although data from a recent study are promising.

Methods of overcoming treatment resistance in colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer remains a lethal disease with a poor prognosis in the majority of patients. Multiple drug combinations have been developed in recent years that have significantly improved response rates and overall survival however resistance to these drugs is inevitable. Novel agents are currently being developed and participation in clinical trials should be encouraged. In the absence of other treatment options in a patient with good performance status, there is compelling evidence for re-challenging with previously administered agents in different combinations. The aim of this review is to discuss mechanisms of resistance and methods to overcome treatment resistance in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are refractory to 5-FU, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, cetuximab and bevacizumab therapy.

Individualized therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

Systemic therapeutic efficacy is central to determining the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). In these patients, there is a critical need for predictive biomarkers to optimize efficacy whilst minimizing toxicity. The integration of a new generation of molecularly targeted drugs into the treatment of CRC, coupled with the development of sophisticated technologies for individual tumours as well as patient molecular profiling, underlines the potential for personalized medicine. In this review, we focus on the latest progress made within the genomic and proteomic fields, concerning predictive biomarkers for individualized therapy in metastatic CRC.

FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab administered weekly or every second week in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II CECOG study

BACKGROUND

This randomized phase II study investigated first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab administered every second week in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received FOLFOX4 plus either standard weekly cetuximab (arm 1) or cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) every second week (arm 2), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety were also investigated. The study was not powered to establish non-inferiority, but aimed at the estimation of treatment differences.

RESULTS

Of 152 randomized eligible patients, 75 were treated in arm 1 and 77 in arm 2; ORRs [53% versus 62%, odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-2.66], PFS [median 9.5 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.63-1.34], OS (median 25.8 versus 23.0 months, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56-1.30) and DCR (87%) were comparable. HRs adjusted for baseline factors were 1.01 and 0.99 for PFS and OS, respectively. Frequencies of grade 3/4 adverse events in arms 1 versus 2 were similar: most common were neutropenia (28% versus 34%) and rash (15% versus 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Activity and safety of FOLFOX4 plus either cetuximab administered weekly or every second week were similar.

Second-line cetuximab/irinotecan versus oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidines for metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS

The goal of the present study was to compare the efficacy of the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan to the combination of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines as second-line chemotherapy in patients with irinotecan-refractory and oxaliplatin-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring wild-type KRAS. The study included 120 patients with mCRC who had progressed after irinotecan-containing first-line chemotherapy and were never treated with oxaliplatin; 40 patients with wild-type KRAS were accrued prospectively in the experimental arm (arm A), and 80 patients accrued retrospectively were divided into control arms B (n = 46) and C (n = 34) according to KRAS genotype. Second-line treatments consisted of cetuximab plus irinotecan for arm A, and oxaliplatin plus either 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or capecitabine (CapeOX) for the control arms. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3, 5.8 and 3.9 months, for arms A, B and C, respectively, with statistical significance favoring arm A (P = 0.007). Differences in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (18.3 vs 12.6 vs 12.9, P = 0.138), although there was a trend toward longer overall survival in arm A. In terms of benefit from oxaliplatin-containing regimens either as second-line or third-line therapy, the median PFS was 5.0 months in arms B and C as second-line therapy, and 4.0 months in arm A as third-line therapy, with no statistical significance (P = 0.385). Second-line cetuximab plus irinotecan is a valid treatment strategy for mCRC patients with irinotecan-refractory and oxaliplatin-naïve tumors harboring wild-type KRAS. Oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy resulted in equivalent PFS both as a second-line and a third-line therapy, enabling delay of the administration of FOLFOX and CapeOX until subsequent treatment cycles.

Targeted therapies in colorectal cancer-an integrative view by PPPM

In developed countries, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy, but it is the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death. Clinicians are still faced with numerous challenges in the treatment of this disease, and future approaches which target the molecular features of the disorder will be critical for success in this disease setting. Genetic analyses of many solid tumours have shown that up to 100 protein-encoding genes are mutated. Within CRC, numerous genetic alterations have been identified in a number of pathways. Therefore, understanding the molecular pathology of CRC may present information on potential routes for treatment and may also provide valuable prognostic information. This will be particularly pertinent for molecularly targeted treatments, such as anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody therapy. KRAS and BRAF mutations have been shown to predict response to anti-EGFR therapy. As EGFR can also signal via the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) kinase pathway, there is considerable interest in the potential roles of members of this pathway (such as PI3K and PTEN) in predicting treatment response. Therefore, a combined approach of new techniques that allow identification of these biomarkers alongside interdisciplinary approaches to the treatment of advanced CRC will aid in the treatment decision-making process and may also serve to guide future therapeutic approaches.