A Randomized Phase II Study of Perioperative Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab Versus Postoperative Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Upfront Resectable Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

Preoperative chemotherapy in upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases: New elements for an old dilemma?

The use of preoperative or "neoadjuvant" chemotherapy (NAC) has long been controversial for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines on metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) indicate a combination of surgical/technical and oncologic/prognostic criteria as the two determinants for allocating patients to NAC or upfront hepatectomy. However, surgical and technical criteria have evolved, and oncologic prognostic criteria date from the pre-modern chemotherapy era and lack prospective validation. The traditional literature is interpreted as not supporting the use of NAC because several studies fail to demonstrate a benefit in overall survival (OS) compared to upfront surgery; however, OS may not be the most appropriate endpoint to consider. Moreover, the commonly quoted studies against NAC contain many limitations that may explain why NAC failed to demonstrate its value. The query of the recent literature focused primarily on other aspects than OS, such as surgical technique, the impact of side effects of chemotherapy, the histological growth pattern of metastases, or the detection of circulating tumor DNA, shows data that support a more widespread use of NAC. These should prompt a critical reappraisal of the use of NAC, leading to a more precise selection of patients who could benefit from it.

Optimizing Treatment Strategy for Oligometastases/Oligo-Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer, and nearly half of CRC patients experience metastases. Oligometastatic CRC represents a distinct clinical state characterized by limited metastatic involvement, demonstrating a less aggressive nature and potentially improved survival with multidisciplinary treatment. However, the varied clinical scenarios giving rise to oligometastases necessitate a precise definition, considering primary tumor status and oncological factors, to optimize treatment strategies. This review delineates the concepts of oligometastatic CRC, encompassing oligo-recurrence, where the primary tumor is under control, resulting in a more favorable prognosis. A comprehensive examination of multidisciplinary treatment with local treatments and systemic therapy is provided. The overarching objective in managing oligometastatic CRC is the complete eradication of metastases, offering prospects of a cure. Essential to this management approach are local treatments, with surgical resection serving as the standard of care. Percutaneous ablation and stereotactic body radiotherapy present less invasive alternatives for lesions unsuitable for surgery, demonstrating efficacy in select cases. Perioperative systemic therapy, aiming to control micrometastatic disease and enhance local treatment effectiveness, has shown improvements in progression-free survival through clinical trials. However, the extension of overall survival remains variable. The review emphasizes the need for further prospective trials to establish a cohesive definition and an optimized treatment strategy for oligometastatic CRC.

Total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: the evidence and expectations

Current management of locally advanced rectal cancer achieves high cure rates, distant metastatic spread being the main cause of patients' death. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) employs (chemo)radiotherapy and combined chemotherapy prior to surgery to improve the treatment outcomes. TNT has been shown to reduce significantly distant metastases, increase disease-free survival by 5 - 10% in 3 years, and finally also overall survival (≈ 5% in 7 years). It proved to double the rate of pathologic complete responses, making it an attractive strategy for non-operative management to avoid permanent colostomy in patients with distal tumors. In addition, it endorses adherence to the therapy due to better tolerance and, potentially, shortens its overall duration. A number of questions related to TNT remain currently unresolved including the indications, preferred radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimens, their sequence, timing of surgery, and role of adjuvant therapy. A stratified approach may be the optimal way to go.

Prognostic impact of R1 resection margin in synchronous and simultaneous colorectal liver metastasis resection: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A margin ≥ 1 mm is considered a standard resection margin for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, microscopic incomplete resection (R1) is not rare since aggressive surgical resection has been attempted in multiple and bilobar CRLM. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of resection margins and perioperative chemotherapy in patients with CRLM.

METHODS

A total of 368 of 371 patients who underwent simultaneous colorectal and liver resection for synchronous CRLM between 2006 and June 2017, excluding three R2 resections, were included in this study. R1 resection was defined as either abutting tumor on the resection line or involved margin in the pathological report. The patients were divided into R0 (n = 304) and R1 (n = 64) groups. The clinicopathological characteristics, overall survival, and intrahepatic recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The R1 group had more patients with ≥ 4 liver lesions (27.3 vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001), higher mean tumor burden score (4.4 vs. 5.8%, P = 0.003), and more bilobar disease (38.8 vs. 67.2%, P < 0.001) than the R0 group. Both R0 and R1 groups showed similar long-term outcomes in the total cohort (OS, P = 0.149; RFS, P = 0.414) and after matching (OS, P = 0.097, RFS: P = 0.924). However, the marginal recurrence rate was higher in the R1 group than in the R0 group (26.6 vs. 16.1%, P = 0.048). Furthermore, the resection margin did not have a significant impact on OS and RFS, regardless of preoperative chemotherapy. Poorly differentiated, N-positive stage colorectal cancer, liver lesion number ≥ 4, and size ≥ 5 cm were poor prognostic factors, and adjuvant chemotherapy had a positive impact on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The R1 group was associated with aggressive tumor characteristics; however, no effect on the OS and intrahepatic RFS with or without preoperative chemotherapy was observed in this study. Tumor biological characteristics, rather than resection margin status, determine long-term prognosis. Therefore, aggressive surgical resection should be considered in patients with CRLM expected to undergo R1 resection in this multidisciplinary approach era.

Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Management and Treatment

(1) Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Up to 50% of patients with CRC develop metastatic CRC (mCRC). Surgical and systemic therapy advances can now offer significant survival advantages. Understanding the evolving treatment options is essential for decreasing mCRC mortality. We aim to summarize current evidence and guidelines regarding the management of mCRC to provide utility when making a treatment plan for the heterogenous spectrum of mCRC. (2) Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and current guidelines written by major cancer and surgical societies were reviewed. The references of the included studies were screened to identify additional studies that were incorporated as appropriate. (3) Results: The standard of care for mCRC primarily consists of surgical resection and systemic therapy. Complete resection of liver, lung, and peritoneal metastases is associated with better disease control and survival. Systemic therapy now includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy options that can be tailored by molecular profiling. Differences between colon and rectal metastasis management exist between major guidelines. (4) Conclusions: With the advances in surgical and systemic therapy, as well as a better understanding of tumor biology and the importance of molecular profiling, more patients can anticipate prolonged survival. We provide a summary of available evidence for the management of mCRC, highlighting the similarities and presenting the difference in available literature. Ultimately, a multidisciplinary evaluation of patients with mCRC is crucial to selecting the appropriate pathway.

Survival Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-2)

Introduction: Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM) was a propensity score matched (PSM) study that reported short-term outcomes of patients with CRLM who met the Milan criteria and underwent either open (OLR), laparoscopic (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR). This study, designated as SIMMILR-2, reports the long-term outcomes from that initial study, now referred to as SIMMILR-1. Methods: Data regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic (NC) and neoadjuvant biological (NB) treatments received were collected, and Kaplan−Meier curves reporting the 5-year overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for OLR, LLR and RLR were created for patients who presented with synchronous lesions only, as there was insufficient follow-up for patients with metachronous lesions. Results: A total of 73% of patients received NC and 38% received NB in the OLR group compared to 70% and 28% in the LLR group, respectively (p = 0.5 and p = 0.08). A total of 82% of patients received NC and 40% received NB in the OLR group compared to 86% and 32% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). A total of 71% of patients received NC and 53% received NB in the LLR group compared to 71% and 47% in the RLR group, respectively (p > 0.05). OS at 5 years was 34.8% after OLR compared to 37.1% after LLR (p = 0.4), 34.3% after OLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.4) and 30.3% after LLR compared to 46.9% after RLR (p = 0.9). RFS at 5 years was 12.1% after OLR compared to 20.7% after LLR (p = 0.6), 33.3% after OLR compared to 26.3% after RLR (p = 0.6) and 22.7% after LLR compared to 34.6% after RLR (p = 0.6). Conclusions: When comparing OLR, LLR and RLR, the OS and RFS were all similar after utilization of the Milan criteria and PSM. Biological agents tended to be utilized more in the OLR group when compared to the LLR group, suggesting that highly aggressive tumors are still managed through an open approach.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring

BACKGROUND

There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx).

METHODS

International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied.

RESULTS

Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

Effectiveness of Combining Bevacizumab With First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Real-World Practice

BACKGROUND

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have shown clinical benefits against metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) when combined with cytotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs. Because randomized controlled trials have restrictive enrollment criteria, and because the participants typically do not resemble actual patients, we here investigated the efficacy of bevacizumab as part of a combination therapy for mCRC in a Korean real-world practice setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 3748 patients with an initial diagnosis of mCRC or recurrent colorectal cancer with distant metastasis who received first-line chemotherapy in a tertiary cancer center. The primary study endpoint was overall survival. We used multivariate analysis using the Cox regression hazard model and propensity score matching (PSM) methods to adjust for any confounding clinicopathologic factors. Subgroup analysis was also performed for patients who did not receive local treatments for metastatic lesions before receipt of first-line chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In an initial crude analysis, patients who received first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed better survival outcomes if these regimens were combined with bevacizumab (median overall survival, 3.5 vs. 2.3 years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.73; P < .001). However, Cox regression hazard model adjusted analysis using PSM methods revealed no significant survival differences between these groups (3.0 vs. 2.6 years; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; P = .2612). We performed further survival analysis of 2814 patients with unresectable disease without metastasectomy who received metastatic radiofrequency ablation before chemotherapy. Cox regression and PSM analysis indicated that bevacizumab group showed better survival (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; P = .005; and HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99; P = .018).

CONCLUSION

The addition of bevacizumab to a first-line chemotherapeutic regimen provides survival benefits in a real-world setting for mCRC patients who cannot undergo curative-intent local treatment for metastatic lesions.