Predictive Value of Early Tumor Shrinkage and Density Reduction of Lung Metastases in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Regorafenib

Identification of Potent hDHODH Inhibitors for Lung Cancer via Virtual Screening of a Rationally Designed Small Combinatorial Library

Cancer is characterized by altered cellular metabolism, and metabolic enzymes are considered as a promising target for anticancer therapy. Pyrimidine metabolism dysregulation is associated with various types of cancer, particularly lung cancer, which is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Recent studies have shown that small-cell lung cancer cells are particularly reliant on the pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway and are sensitive to its disruption. DHODH, the rate-limiting enzyme of the de novo pyrimidine production pathway, is essential in the production of RNA and DNA and is overexpressed in malignancies such as AML, skin cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer, thereby highlighting DHODH as a viable target for developing drugs to combat lung cancer. Herein, rational drug design and computational techniques were used to discover novel DHODH inhibitors. A small combinatorial library was generated, and the top hits were synthesized and tested for anticancer activity against three lung cancer cell lines. Among the tested compounds, compound 5c possessed a stronger cytotoxicity (TC₅₀ of 11 μM) compared to the standard FDA-approved drug (Regorafenib, TC₅₀ of 13 μM) on the A549 cell line. Furthermore, compound 5c demonstrated potent inhibitory activity against hDHODH at a nanomolar level of 421 nM. DFT, molecular docking, molecular dynamic simulations, and free energy calculations were also carried out to understand the inhibitory mechanisms of the synthesized scaffolds. These in silico studies identified key mechanisms and structural features that will be crucial for future studies.

Efficacy and safety of raltitrexed plus S-1 versus regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib both showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of two different regimens in patients with refractory mCRC.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included mCRC patients who were treated with RS or regorafenib from February 2017 to June 2021. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics of all patients. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response, and safety of two regimens were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were included in our study, with 107 patients in the RS group and 80 patients in the regorafenib group. After PSM, 78 pairs were recognized. Patients treated with RS had a semblable PFS compared to those treated with regorafenib before PSM (4.8 months vs 5.5 months, p = 0.400) and after PSM (4.7 months vs 5.4 months, p = 0.430). Patients in the RS group were associated with a longer OS than those in the regorafenib group (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010). A similar trend of OS was also obtained in the matched cohort (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). Both objective response rate (12.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.093) and disease control rate (53.8% vs 46.2%, p = 0.337) in the RS cohort were higher than those in the regorafenib group, without significant differences. Adverse events (AEs) of each group were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with RS demonstrated a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib and had manageable AEs, which could be recognized as a primary choice for refractory mCRC.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Efficacy and Safety of Raltitrexed plus S-1 Versus Regorafenib in Patients with Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-world Propensity Score Matching StudyBoth raltitrexed plus S-1 (RS) and regorafenib showed considerable efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. No study has compared the two regimens yet. Therefore, we compare the efficacy and safety between RS and regorafenib to provide an optimal treatment option. We retrospectively included patients with mCRC who failed at least two standard treatments. All enrolled patients received RS or regorafenib treatments. We conducted a propensity score matching to eliminate differences in the enrolled patients. After the analysis, we found no significant differences in progression-free survival in patients between the two groups. However, patients treated with RS had a longer OS than those treated with regorafenib, whether before matching (13.4 months vs 10.1 months, p = 0.010) or after matching (13.3 months vs 10.0 months, p = 0.024). In addition, the adverse effects caused by cancer-related therapy were tolerable for the patient. Certainly, this is a non-randomized retrospective study with a small sample size, so we conducted a propensity score matching to minimize potential bias. Importantly, this is the first research comparing the two treatments, and we believe that the results of this article could present a primary choice for clinical doctors dealing with patients with standard treatments that failed mCRC.

Different Radiological Criteria for Early Tumor Response Evaluation in Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Anti-PD-1 Antibody Plus Bevacizumab

Purpose

We aimed to compare different radiological criteria in evaluating the early tumor response of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated with an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody plus bevacizumab.

Method

From October 2018 to January 2020, 58 patients [49 (84.5%) men, age = 55.2 ± 10.6 years] receiving both anti-PD-1 antibody and bevacizumab were retrospectively included. Pre- and the first posttreatment contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) scans were performed in all patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), modified RECIST (mRECIST), Choi, and the revised Choi (rChoi) criteria were applied to evaluate tumor response. The endpoint event was defined as overall survival (OS).

Results

Six (10.3%), 9 (15.5%), 30 (51.7%), and 12 (20.7%) patients were diagnosed as responders by RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, Choi, and rChoi, respectively. The RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST criteria failed to correlate the evaluation categories with OS (p = 0.130 and 0.253, respectively), while both Choi and rChoi significantly correlated with OS (p = 0.002 and 0.006, respectively). Among the four criteria, only those patients identified as responders by Choi (p = 0.0005) and rChoi (p = 0.005) showed significantly better OS than the non-responders. The cumulative 1- and 2-year OS rates by Choi were 93.3% and 79.8% in responders and 69.3% and 30.3% in non-responders, respectively; these rates were 100.0% and 100.0% in responders and 74.9% and 43.1% in non-responders by rChoi, respectively.

Conclusions

The evaluation of early tumor response using Choi and rChoi instead of RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST significantly correlated with the OS of patients with uHCC treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody plus bevacizumab. Moreover, patients identified as responders by Choi and rChoi showed significantly better OS than the non-responders.

RECIST 1.1, Choi and mChoi criteria in the evaluation of tumor response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with Regorafenib and anti-PD-1 antibody

PURPOSE

No comparative study on evaluating performance of radiological criteria has been investigated in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with the combination of Regorafenib and anti-programmed cell death 1(PD-1) antibody. We aimed to compare the performance of different radiological criteria in evaluating response in mCRC patients treated with the combination of Regorafenib plus anti-PD-1 antibody.

METHOD

We retrospectively recruited patients treated with Regorafenib and anti-PD-1 antibody in a single institution. Baseline and the first tumor evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) were assessed by three evaluation criteria: RECIST 1.1, Choi, modified Choi (mChoi). Overall survival (OS) was defined as endpoint event.

RESULTS

Twenty-three mCRC patients [age: 58.8 ± 10.6 years, 18 (78.3 %) males] were assessed. The median overall survival was 11.8 months. According to RECIST 1.1, 8 (34.8 %) patients were stable disease (SD) and 15 (65.2 %) were progressive disease (PD). According to Choi and mChoi, 5 (21.7 %) and 1(4.3 %) patient was responders, respectively. All non-PD patients showed significantly better overall survival than PD patients by all criteria. According to Choi, those identified as responders showed better overall survival than non-responders though significant statistics were not reached (P=0.262).

CONCLUSIONS

RECIST 1.1, Choi and mChoi criteria could identify survival benefit from Regorafenib plus anti-PD-1 antibody in mCRC patients. However, the value of responders detected by Choi remains to be validated in further studies.

Imaging and clinical correlates with regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer

In colorectal cancer (CRC), imaging is important in determining tumor stage, selecting treatment strategies, and in assessing response to therapy. However, some challenges remain with established imaging techniques, such as computed tomography, and with some commonly used response criteria, such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, which measures change in size of several target lesions instead of change in tumor morphology or metabolic function. In addition, these assessments are not typically conducted until after 8 weeks of treatment, meaning that potential non-responders are often not identified in a timely manner. Regorafenib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of metastatic CRC, blocks the activity of several protein kinases involved in angiogenesis, oncogenesis, metastasis, and tumor immunity. Timely differentiation of regorafenib responders from non-responders using appropriate imaging techniques that recognize not only changes in tumor size but also changes in tumor density or vasculature, may reduce unnecessary drug-related toxicity in patients who are unlikely to respond to treatment. This review discusses the latest developments in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography tumor imaging modalities, and how these aid in identifying patients with metastatic CRC who are responders or non-responders to regorafenib treatment.

Multicenter Cohort Study to Assess the Association between Changes on Imaging and Outcome after Regorafenib Treatment (KSCC1603)

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Molecular targeted drugs having angiogenesis-inhibiting properties allow the induction of necrosis inside tumors. We retrospectively investigated the relationship between changes on imaging associated with regorafenib (REGO) and treatment outcomes using real-world data. <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> The eligibility criteria included an ECOG PS of 0–1, a starting dose of 120 or 160 mg/day of REGO, and a duration of treatment of at least 35 days. Regarding changes on imaging, cavitation in lung lesions (CLL), morphologic response of liver lesions (MRL), and change of liver metastasis density (CLD) were evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> We finally screened 671 cases, and 226 cases were eligible. In total, 172 and 145 patients had lung and liver metastases, respectively. Among the patients with lung metastasis, CLL was found in 69 patients (40.0%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the patients with and those without CLL was 3.2 and 2.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.758; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.529–1.087), and the median overall survival (OS) of these groups was 10.5 and 8.9 months, respectively (HR = 0.862; 95% CI: 0.579–1.285). MRL and CLD of liver metastasis were analyzed in 145 and 90 patients, respectively. The median OS with and without MRL was 8.9 and 8.2 months, respectively, whereas the median OS with and without CLD was 11.6 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR = 0.523; 95% CI: 0.275–0.992). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> CLL may predict PFS but not OS among patients with lung metastasis. CLD was predictive of favorable outcomes for REGO in patients with liver metastasis.

Regorafenib: A Review in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Regorafenib (Stivarga^®) is an oral small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. It is indicated worldwide for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the EU and USA it is indicated for patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild-type, an anti-EGFR therapy. In Japan, it is indicated for the treatment of unresectable, advanced/recurrent CRC. The addition of regorafenib to best supportive care prolonged median overall survival (OS; by up to 2.5 months) and progression-free survival (PFS; by up to 1.5 months) relative to the addition of placebo in double-blind phase 3 studies (CORRECT and CONCUR) in patients with mCRC who had progressed after failure of standard therapy. Health-related quality of life was not adversely affected with regorafenib relative to placebo. A large open-label phase 3 study (CONSIGN) and several large real-world studies supported the efficacy of regorafenib in this setting. Regorafenib had a generally manageable tolerability profile, which was consistent with the profile of a typical small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs), mostly of mild or moderate severity, were reported in the majority of patients receiving regorafenib, with dermatological toxicities and liver enzyme elevations among the most common AEs. Although identification of biomarkers/parameters predicting efficacy outcomes with regorafenib will help to individualize therapy, current evidence indicates that regorafenib is a valuable treatment option for patients with refractory mCRC who have a very poor prognosis.

Predictive Biomarkers in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The development and use of predictive biomarkers to guide treatment decisions are paramount not only for improving survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but also for sparing them from unnecessary toxicity and reducing the economic burden of expensive treatments. We conducted a systematic review of published studies and evaluated the predictive biomarker landscape in the mCRC setting from a molecular and clinical viewpoint.

METHODS

Studies analyzing predictive biomarkers for approved therapies in patients with mCRC were identified systematically using electronic databases. Preclinical studies and those providing no relevant information were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 173 studies comprising 148 biomarkers were selected for final analysis. Of all the biomarkers analyzed, 1.4% (two of 148) were explored in a prospective manner, whereas 98.6% (146 of 148) were evaluated in retrospective studies. Of the latter group, 78.8% (115 of 146) were not tested in subsequent phases, 9.6% (14 of 146) were tested in other retrospective cohorts, 8.9% (13 of 146) were retrospectively tested in at least one or more randomized cohorts, and only 2.7% (four of 146) were prospectively tested in a clinical trial. Finally, only 1.4% (two of 148) were validated sufficiently and are recognized as biomarkers for guiding treatment decision making in patients with mCRC. These markers were RAS mutational status for anti-EGFR antibodies and microsatellite instability status for anti-programmed cell death-1 drugs.

CONCLUSION

Despite notable efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for various therapies used in the mCRC setting, because of a lack of data beyond retrospective studies and successful biomarker-driven approaches, only two molecular biomarkers have thus far found their translation into the clinic, highlighting the imperative need for implementing novel strategies and additional research in this clinically important field.

Early tumor shrinkage after first-line medical treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) is a response-related endpoint of clinical trials of chemotherapy (CHT) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It identifies a dimensional reduction of tumor size by at least 20-30% after 6-8 weeks of CHT.

METHODS

A literature search of randomized trials of systemic treatment including CHT with or without antiangiogenics or anti-EGFR inhibitors in patients with mCRC has been conducted, and studies reporting the results of the relationship of ETS with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were selected.

RESULTS

Twelve trials, including 3117 patients, have been included; all data were retrospective and only 72% of the enrolled patients have been evaluated for ETS. Two meta-analyses, each including 20 study cohorts from the selected 12 trials, reported a strong relationship of ETS with OS (HR 0.62; CIs 0.55-0.69) and of ETS with PFS (HR 0.66; CIs 0.60-0.73). However, both meta-analyses displayed a high level of heterogeneity. Among nine possible moderators, three variables (median age, surgery of metastases, and publication year) were able to explain at least a part of this heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

ETS is a simple and interesting intermediate endpoint for clinical practice and future trials of medical treatments of patients with mCRC, but a large prospective analysis and validation are mandatory.

Third- or Later-line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Reviewing Best Practice

An increasing number of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are able to receive 3 or more lines of therapy. Treatments in this setting can include regorafenib (an oral multikinase inhibitor), trifluridine/tipiracil hydrochloride (TAS-102), antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptor for patients with RAS wild-type tumors (if no prior exposure), and, where approved, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors for patients with microsatellite instability-high mCRC. Although guidelines describe the available treatment options, few insights are provided to guide selection and sequencing. In this article, we share expert opinion from diverse geographic regions, to offer guidance for best practice when selecting and managing third-line treatment for mCRC. Various factors, including performance status, age, and tumor sidedness, can be used to guide treatment selection. Biomarkers, such as RAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability, can be useful for treatment stratification. Management of adverse events, to maintain quality of life, is a key consideration and is crucial to best practice in this setting. Common toxicities associated with third-line treatments are hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue, diarrhea, and cytopenias. Patients who receive third-line and later-line treatments should be monitored for these events, especially during the first 2 cycles. Dose modifications can also be used to manage toxicities and to minimize the effect on quality of life, while maximizing treatment benefit. Clinical trials of emerging agents, new treatment combinations, and novel therapies continue the efforts to improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. Sharing expert opinions on best practice for treatment selection and management can ultimately improve outcomes for patients with mCRC.