The role of salvage treatment in advanced colorectal cancer

First-line cetuximab improves the efficacy of subsequent bevacizumab for RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: an observational retrospective study

The optimal targeted therapy sequence in patients of RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial, and few studies focus on the impact of first-line targeted agents on second-line ones. We enrolled 101 left-sided mCRC patients with RAS wild-type status, of which 50 cases received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in both first-line and second-line therapies (Group A) and 51 cases received first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy followed by second-line bevacizumab-containing regimens (Group B). The progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from start of first-line (PFS 1nd and OS 1nd) and second-line (PFS 2nd and OS 2nd) therapy were compared between the two groups. PFS 1nd was comparable (10.0 vs 10.4 months; p = 0.402), while PFS 2nd (4.6 vs 7.9 months; p = 0.002), OS 1nd (26.8 vs 40.0 months; p = 0.011), and OS 2nd (15.2 vs 22.3 months; p = 0.006) were all poorer in group A compared with group B. Our study in combination with previous clinical data suggest that first-line application of cetuximab may provide a favorable condition for promoting the effect of subsequent bevacizumab, thus representing the optimal targeted therapy sequence in patients of RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC.

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated in First Line with Bevacizumab- or Cetuximab-Containing Regimens

PURPOSE

Patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene wild-type (KRAS WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in first line with bevacizumab (B) or cetuximab (C) plus standard chemo backbones had comparable outcomes in phase III Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 80405. We examined comparative effectiveness of B and C regimens in real-world community settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in a US community sample of KRAS WT mCRC patients treated with first-line B (n = 254) or C (n = 146) regimens. Medical records from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse were used. Disease progression was determined from patient charts. OS was measured from the start of first-line treatment until death.

RESULTS

There were no significant difference in either PFS or OS respectively between B-treated compared to C-treated patients (HR = 1.324, 95% CI 0.901, 1.947; HR = 1.080, 95% CI 0.721, 1.617). More B patients received oxaliplatin backbones (74.8 vs. 36.3%), and more C patients received irinotecan backbones (51.4 vs. 20.1%), ps < 0.001. Multivariate survival analyses showed a significant difference indicating a greater risk for death among C-treated patients with right-sided tumors vs. left-sided tumors (HR = 2.263, 95% CI 1.394, 3.673, p = 0.0009), but not for B-treated patients (HR = 1.209, 95% CI 0.825, 1.771, p = 0.3297).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with CALGB 80405, median PFS and OS for these community oncology KRAS WT mCRC patients treated with first-line B or C regimens did not differ significantly.

A case of long-term survival after repeated response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and repeated thermoablation of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Should we introduce the concept of oxaliplatin-resistant tumors?

Background

The management of advanced colorectal cancer patients differs among cancer centers. International guidelines recommend offering all the recognized active regimens in order to obtain survival advantage, but little information is given about the sequence and combination in which such regimens should be administered.

Case report

We report the case of a man with multiple liver metastasis from colorectal cancer followed for more than 78 months at our Institution. Repeated response to the same oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid chemotherapy schedule was achieved, and repeated radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases was performed until progression of lung and brain disease at 50 and 72 months, respectively, after the diagnosis of advanced disease. Although the tumor became oxaliplatin and chemo-resistant after the onset of extra-hepatic disease, a more aggressive chemotherapy regimen, including a doublet with a biological, halted tumor growth.

Conclusions

The patient survived for more than 78 months without experiencing a major impact on his quality of life. This case reflects the importance of following tumor biology in the therapeutic decision-making process, reintroducing oxaliplatin whenever possible, and adopting a more aggressive strategy when the tumor becomes oxaliplatin-resistant.

Progression-Free Survival in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Alone (C) or Chemotherapy with Bevacizumab (CB) for First-Line Treatment of KRAS Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Community Oncology Settings

PURPOSE

Bevacizumab is a standard first-line (L1) treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients regardless of RAS status. This retrospective study examined treatment patterns and outcomes in a community oncology sample of KRAS mutant mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy (C) or C plus bevacizumab (CB) in L1.

METHODS

This study used medical records from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse. Eligible patients were confirmed KRAS mutant mCRC and received L1 C or CB. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed L1 progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression models examined the interaction of tumor location (R/L) with treatment.

RESULTS

CB (n = 264) compared to C (n = 109) patients were younger, less likely performance status (PS) impaired, and more likely with liver metastases. Median unadjusted PFS was 10.41 months (95% CI 9.0-11.3) in CB and 7.66 months (95% CI 6.5-9.1) in C patients (p = 0.174). Median unadjusted OS was 26.91 months (95% CI 24.3-29.3) in CB and 23.33 months (95% CI 19.7-29.2) in C patients (p = 0.571). For patients with right- vs. left-sided tumors, C (but not CB)-treated patients had higher adjusted risk for progression (HR = 1.715, 95% CI 1.108, 2.653; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

CB- vs. C-treated KRAS mutant mCRC patients may have a meaningful PFS benefit. Patients with right-sided tumors treated with C were at higher risk for disease progression than patients with left-sided tumors. Tumor location had no significant effect on outcomes in the CB cohort.

Symptom burden & quality of life among patients receiving second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab (B) and cetuximab (C) are both approved for use in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the second-line. We examined patient reported symptom burden during second-line treatment of mCRC.

METHODS

Adult mCRC patients treated in the second-line setting with a regimen that included B, C, or chemotherapy only (O) and who had completed ≥ 1 Patient Care Monitor (PCM) surveys as part of routine clinical care were drawn from the ACORN Data Warehouse. Primary endpoints were rash, dry skin, itching, nail changes, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, burning in hands/feet, and diarrhea. Linear mixed models examined change in PCM scores across B, C and O (B = reference).

RESULTS

182 patients were enrolled (B: n = 106, C: n = 38, O: n = 38). Patients were 51% female, 67% Caucasian, with mean age of 62.0 (SD = 12.6). Groups did not differ on demographic or clinical characteristics. The most common second-line regimens were FOLFIRI ± B or C (23.1%) and FOLFOX ± B or C (22.5%). Results showed baseline scores to be strongly predictive of second-line symptoms across all PCM items (all p's < .0001 except for Rash, p = .0013). Controlling for baseline, patients on B tended to have more stable and less severe symptoms. Patients on C had more severe rash, dry skin, and itching and had nail change scores that worsened faster than did B patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving second-line treatment for mCRC with B report less symptom burden, especially dermatologic, compared to patients treated with C.

Outcome of second-line treatment after first-line chemotherapy with the GONO FOLFOXIRI regimen

PURPOSE

FOLFOXIRI demonstrated higher efficacy compared to 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated the outcome of second-line treatments among 196 patients treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI in three consecutive trials conducted by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred seventy-two of 196 patients so far progressed and 136 (79%) received second-line therapies: 32 (24%) were rechallenged with FOLFOXIRI, 52 (38%) were treated with irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based doublets, and 52 (38%) received fluoropyrimidine plus mytomicin C or single-agent chemotherapy. Only 10 patients received bevacizumab (3) or cetuximab (7) with chemotherapy. Activity and efficacy data were collected and subgroup analyses were performed according to the regimen administered.

RESULTS

Overall response rate (RR) was 23%; median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.9 and 13.2 months, respectively. At an exploratory subgroup analysis, retreatment with FOLFOXIRI was associated with longer PFS (8.2 versus 6.3 months; P = .003, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61) and OS (19.3 versus 14.0 months; P = .02, HR = 0.57) compared with doublets; single-agent chemotherapy or fluoropyrimidine plus mytomicin C was significantly lower in terms of RR (8%), PFS (3.0 months), and OS (8.7 months) compared with FOLFOXIRI or doublets.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line FOLFOXIRI does not impair the efficacy of second-line treatments. In some patients rechallenge with FOLFOXIRI may represent a valid option, although potential imbalances in prognostic factors due to better patient selection should be considered.

Combining capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and gemcitabine (XELOXGEM) for colorectal carcinoma patients pretreated with irinotecan: a multicenter phase I/II trial

PURPOSE

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is an effective second-line regimen for advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients pretreated with irinotecan. Previous studies have shown supra-additive anti-tumor activity of gemcitabine (GEM) when administered with oxaliplatin. We investigated the dose, toxicity, and efficacy of a second-line XELOXGEM regimen in CRC patients pretreated with irinotecan.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC who failed after a first-line irinotecan-containing regimen received escalating doses of gemcitabine (600, 800, 1,000 mg/m(2) d1, d8) followed by capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d d1-14) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2) d1) on a 21-day cycle.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were treated. At 800 mg/m(2), two of six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (diarrhea and thrombocytopenia). Therefore, the clinically recommended dose was defined as 600 mg/m(2) gemcitabine (d1, d8) followed by 1,000 mg/m(2) capecitabine (b.i.d dl-14) and 100 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin (d1). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (13%), anemia (11%), and peripheral neuropathy (11%). Ten (26.3%) and 23 (60.5%) patients experienced partial response and stable disease, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.4 months (95% CI 3.8-6.9 months) and 17.7 months (95% CI 8.4-26.9 months), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The XELOXGEM triplet combination is an active and safe second-line regimen for advanced CRC patients pretreated with irinotecan.

Phase I/II study of oncolytic herpes simplex virus NV1020 in patients with extensively pretreated refractory colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver

This multicenter phase I/II study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor effects of repeated doses of NV1020, a genetically engineered oncolytic herpes simplex virus, in patients with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with liver-dominant mCRC received four fixed NV1020 doses via weekly hepatic artery infusion, followed by two or more cycles of conventional chemotherapy. Phase I included cohorts receiving 3 × 10(6), 1 × 10(7), 3 × 10(7), and 1 × 10(8) plaque-forming units (PFU)/dose to determine the optimal biological dose (OBD) for phase II. Blind independent computed tomography scan review was based on RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) to assess hepatic tumor response. Phase I and II enrolled 13 and 19 patients, respectively. Patients experienced transient mild-moderate febrile reactions after each NV1020 infusion. Grade 3/4 virus-related toxicity was limited to transient lymphopenia in two patients. NV1020 shedding was not detected. Simultaneous cytokine and grade 1 coagulation perturbations were dose-limiting at 1 × 10(8) PFU/dose, considered the OBD. All 22 OBD patients had previously received 5-fluorouracil; most had received oxaliplatin or irinotecan (50% had both), many with at least one targeted agent. After NV1020 administration, 50% showed stable disease. The best overall tumor control rate after chemotherapy was 68% (1 partial response, 14 stable disease); this did not correlate with baseline variables or chemotherapy. Median time to progression was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval: 2, 8.9); median overall survival was 11.8 months (95% confidence interval: 8.3, 20.7). One-year survival was 47.2%. We conclude that NV1020 stabilizes liver metastases with minimal toxicity in mCRC. It may resensitize metastases to salvage chemotherapy and extend overall survival. A randomized phase II/III trial now appears justified.