1
|
Martin E, Le Malicot K, Guérin-Charbonnel C, Bocquet F, Bouché O, Turpin A, Aparicio T, Legoux JL, Dahan L, Taieb J, Lepage C, Dourthe LM, Pétorin C, Bourgeois V, Raoul JL, Seegers V. How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology. Curr Oncol 2024; 31:3513-3528. [PMID: 38920742 PMCID: PMC11202503 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31060259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2024] [Revised: 06/06/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024] Open
Abstract
In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elodie Martin
- Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, F 49055 Angers, France
| | - Karine Le Malicot
- Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD), EPICAD INSERM LNC-UMR 1231, University of Burgundy, F 21078 Dijon, France
| | - Catherine Guérin-Charbonnel
- Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, F 49055 Angers, France
- CRCI2NA, INSERM U1307, CNRS UMR6075, University of Nantes, F 44000 Nantes, France
| | - François Bocquet
- Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, F 49055 Angers, France
- Law and Social Change Laboratory, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, CNRS UMR 6297, Nantes University, F 44035 Nantes, France
| | - Olivier Bouché
- Department of Digestive Oncology, CHU Reims, F 51092 Reims, France
| | - Anthony Turpin
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital, F 59000 Lille, France;
| | - Thomas Aparicio
- Department of Gastroenterology, Saint Louis Hospital, APHP, Université Paris Cité, F 75010 Paris, France
| | - Jean-Louis Legoux
- Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Régional, F 45100 Orléans, France
| | - Laetitia Dahan
- C.H.U. la Timone and Université de la Méditerranée Marseille, F 13005 Marseille, France
| | - Julien Taieb
- Institut du Cancer Paris CARPEM, Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Department, APHP Centre–Université Paris Cité, Hôpital Européen G. Pompidou, F 75015 Paris, France
- Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, INSERM, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, USPC, Université de Paris, Université Paris Cité, F 75006 Paris, France
| | - Côme Lepage
- Department of HGE & Digestive Oncology, EPICAD INSERM UMR LNC 1231, University Hospital Dijon, University of Burgundy, F 21078 Dijon, France
| | | | - Caroline Pétorin
- Service d’Oncologie Digestive, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, F 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Vincent Bourgeois
- Service d’Oncologie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier de Boulogne sur Mer, F 62321 Boulogne-sur-Mer, France
| | - Jean-Luc Raoul
- Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, F 49055 Angers, France
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pinto C, Orlandi A, Normanno N, Maiello E, Calegari MA, Antonuzzo L, Bordonaro R, Zampino MG, Pini S, Bergamo F, Tonini G, Avallone A, Latiano TP, Rosati G, Cogoni AA, Ballestrero A, Zaniboni A, Roselli M, Tamberi S, Barone C. Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:1278-1287. [PMID: 38181312 PMCID: PMC11095858 DOI: 10.1200/jco.23.01021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2023] [Revised: 08/12/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/07/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity. METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A. RESULTS Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%). CONCLUSION The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carmine Pinto
- Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centre Azienda USL—IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Armando Orlandi
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UOC Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Nicola Normanno
- Translational Research Departement, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS—Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Evaristo Maiello
- Oncology Unit, Foundation IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
| | - Maria A. Calegari
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UOC Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Antonuzzo
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Italy Clinical Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Firenze, Italy
| | - Roberto Bordonaro
- Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy
| | - Maria G. Zampino
- Division of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology and Neuroendocrine Tumors, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Sara Pini
- Ospedale Santa Maria delle Croci, Ravenna, Italy
| | - Francesca Bergamo
- Dipartimento Oncologia 1, IOV—Istituto Oncologico Veneto IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Tonini
- Dipartimento di Oncologia, Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico, Facoltà di Medicina Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Avallone
- Medical Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Tiziana P. Latiano
- Oncology Unit, Foundation IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
| | - Gerardo Rosati
- Medical Oncology Unit, S. Carlo Hospital, Potenza, Italy
| | | | - Alberto Ballestrero
- DiMI Università degli Studi di Genova e Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IRCCS, Genova, Italy
| | | | - Mario Roselli
- Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Tamberi
- UO Medical Oncology, Area Vasta Romagna Ausl di Ravenna, Presidio Ospedaliero di Faenza, Ospedale Civile degli Infermi, Faenza, Italy
| | - Carlo Barone
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, UOC Medical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Petrelli F, Cherri S, Ghidini M, Tomasello G, Ghidini A, Zaniboni A. Efficacy of different maintenance strategies for RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2024; 56:242-247. [PMID: 37369616 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Revised: 06/05/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In metastatic RAS wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC), induction combination chemotherapy doublets (CT) with an anti-EGFR agent are considered the primary treatment. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the relative efficacy of different maintenance treatments for advanced RAS wild-type CRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane, from database inception until December 2021 were used. Randomized clinical trials enrolling adults with advanced RAS wild-type CRC and providing overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) data PRISMA guidelines for NMA were followed. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. RESULTS A total of 7 randomized phase 2 trials were included (for a total of 1286 patients). Compared to depotentiation treatments, continuous CT + anti-EGFR was not significantly superior to other maintenance regimens for OS and was ranked as the best option for NMA (SUCRA p-score=0.69). Conversely, in the PFS analysis, single-agent fluoropyrimidines + anti-EGFR was ranked as the best treatment (SUCRA p-score=0.60). CONCLUSIONS Maintaining chemotherapy doublet + anti-EGFR until progression appears to be the best first-line strategy in terms of OS for advanced unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC treatment. However, fluoropyrimidines single-agent + cetuximab or panitumumab represent a reasonable choice regarding PFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sara Cherri
- Oncology Unit, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Michele Ghidini
- Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | - Gianluca Tomasello
- Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mastrantoni L, Beccia V, Caira G, Trovato G, Calegari MA, Basso M, Salvatore L, Pozzo C, Tortora G, Bria E, Orlandi A. Maintenance strategies after anti-EGFR-based induction in metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2023; 191:104106. [PMID: 37659764 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2023] [Accepted: 08/20/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In RAS wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) maintenance therapy after induction with fluoropyrimidine (FP)-based cytotoxic therapy (CT) plus anti-EGFR agents is controversial. METHODS Phase II-III randomized trials were included. Maintenance strategies considered were: observation, anti-EGFR or FP monotherapy, FP + anti-EGFR, doublet CT + anti-EGFR. RESULTS Maintenance with FP + anti-EGFR (HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.36-0.89) showed the greatest PFS benefit compared to observation, ranking first on SUCRA analysis (96.4%). Considering OS, doublet CT+ anti-EGFR, FP + anti-EGFR and anti-EGFR monotherapy yielded similar results. For PFS, FP + anti-EGFR confirmed to be valuable in BRAF wt patients and left sided tumors. In left sided tumors, the OS benefit of adding CT was limited. FP plus anti-EGFR showed a favourable safety profile compared to doublet CT + anti-EGFR. CONCLUSIONS FP + anti-EGFR can be considered a valuable maintenance option in RAS wt mCRC. EGFR monotherapy can be considered, especially in left-sided tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Mastrantoni
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
| | - Viria Beccia
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
| | - Giulia Caira
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
| | - Giovanni Trovato
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
| | - Maria Alessandra Calegari
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Michele Basso
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Lisa Salvatore
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Carmelo Pozzo
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Giampaolo Tortora
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Emilio Bria
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS Rome, Italy.
| | - Armando Orlandi
- Medical Oncology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Boige V, Blons H, François E, Ben Abdelghani M, Phelip JM, Le Brun-Ly V, Mineur L, Galais MP, Villing AL, Hautefeuille V, Miglianico L, De La Fouchardière C, Genet D, Levasseur N, Levaché CB, Penel N, Mitry E, Jacquot S, Aparicio T, Brument E, Gourgou S, Castan F, Bouché O. Maintenance Therapy With Cetuximab After FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2333533. [PMID: 37721754 PMCID: PMC10507485 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance The optimal maintenance strategy after induction chemotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains to be debated. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with single-agent cetuximab after FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) plus cetuximab induction therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants The TIME (Treatment After Irinotecan-Based Frontline Therapy: Maintenance With Erbitux]) (PRODIGE 28 [Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie Digestive]-UCGI 27 [UniCancer GastroIntestinal Group]) phase 2 noncomparative, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 15, 2014, to November 23, 2018, among 139 patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. The cutoff date for analysis was July 21, 2022. Interventions After first-line induction therapy with 8 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, patients without disease progression were randomized (1:1) to biweekly maintenance with cetuximab or observation. On disease progression, the same induction regimen was recommended for 16 weeks followed by further maintenance with cetuximab or observation until disease progression under the full induction regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the 6-month progression-free rate from randomization. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. An exploratory biomolecular analysis, using next-generation sequencing, investigated the putative prognostic value of the tumor mutation profile. Results Of 214 patients enrolled (141 men [65.9%]; median age, 67 years [range, 23-85 years]), 139 were randomized to receive cetuximab (n = 67; 45 men [67.2%]; median age, 64 years [range, 34-85 years]) or to be observed (n = 72; 50 men [69.4%]; median age, 68 years [23-85 years]). The 6-month progression-free rate was 38.8% ([26 of 67] 95% CI, 27.1%-51.5%) in the cetuximab group and 5.6% ([4 of 72] 95% CI, 1.5%-13.6%) in the observation group. At a median follow-up of 40.5 months (95% CI, 33.6-47.5 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.7 months) in the observation group. Median overall survival (OS) was 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.7-30.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 19.7 months (95% CI, 13.3-24.4 months) in the observation group. In an exploratory multivariate analysis, any tumor-activating mutation in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway genes was associated with shorter PFS from randomization regardless of treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.62]; P = .04). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effect in the cetuximab group during maintenance therapy was rash (8 of 67 [11.9%]). Conclusion and Relevance The randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point but suggests clinically meaningful PFS and OS benefits associated with cetuximab maintenance therapy. However, maintenance cetuximab or treatment breaks after first-line combination FOLFIRI-cetuximab therapy seems inappropriate for patients with MAPK-mutated independently of the side of primary tumor. A more complete assessment of MAPK pathway mutations warrants further investigation to the refine treatment strategy for patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02404935.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valérie Boige
- Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
- INSERM UMR-S1138, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers-Sorbonne Université- Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Hélène Blons
- INSERM UMR-S1138, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers-Sorbonne Université- Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France
- Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Oncology and Pharmacogenetics, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, APHP-Centre, Université Paris Cité, Paris Cancer Institute CARPEM, Paris, France
| | - Eric François
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antoine Lacassagne Centre, Nice, France
| | | | - Jean-Marc Phelip
- Departement of Hepato-gastroenterology, Saint Etienne Hospital, Saint Priest en Jarez, France
| | - Valerie Le Brun-Ly
- Departement of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Dupuytren Hospital, Limoges, France
| | - Laurent Mineur
- Departement of Clinical Research, Sainte Catherine Institute, Avignon, France
| | | | | | | | - Laurent Miglianico
- Department of Radiotherapy, Saint Grégoire Hospital, Saint-Grégoire, France
| | | | - Dominique Genet
- Departement of Oncology and Radiotherapy, François Chénieux Clinic, Limoges, France
| | - Nadia Levasseur
- Department of Oncology, Jean Rougier Hospital, Cahors, France
| | - Charles-Briac Levaché
- Departement of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Francheville Polyclinic, Périgueux, France
| | - Nicolas Penel
- Pole of Oncology, Oscar Lambret Centre, Lille, France
| | - Emmanuel Mitry
- Department of Medical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France
| | - Stéphane Jacquot
- Department of Radiotherapy, Clementville Clinic, Montpellier, France
| | - Thomas Aparicio
- Department of Gastro-enterology, Saint Louis Hospital, APHP, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | | | - Sophie Gourgou
- Biometry Unit, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France
| | - Florence Castan
- Biometry Unit, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France
| | - Olivier Bouché
- Department of Digestive Oncology, CHU Reims, Université Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Raimondi A, Nichetti F, Stahler A, Wasan HS, Aranda E, Randon G, Kurreck A, Meade AM, Díaz-Rubio E, Niger M, Stintzing S, Palermo F, Trarbach T, Prisciandaro M, Sommerhäuser G, Fisher D, Morano F, Pietrantonio F, Modest DP. Optimal maintenance strategy following FOLFOX plus anti-EGFR induction therapy in patients with RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2023; 190:112945. [PMID: 37441940 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.112945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Revised: 06/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/11/2023] [Indexed: 07/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anti-EGFR antibodies plus doublet chemotherapy is the standard of care in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No phase-3 level of evidence is available to guide treatment de-escalation after anti-EGFR-based first-line. Several randomised clinical trials investigated de-intensification strategies with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) and/or anti-EGFR. METHODS We performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of Valentino, Panama, MACRO-2, COIN-B trials including RAS wild-type mCRC patients who received first-line therapy with FOLFOX plus panitumumab or cetuximab followed by pre-specified maintenance strategy. Only patients who started maintenance according to the assigned arm were included. Patients were categorised by type of maintenance (i.e. 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR or 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of maintenance; toxicity was evaluated for the maintenance treatment period. RESULTS A total of 518 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Overall, 123, 185 and 210 patients received maintenance with 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR, 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR, respectively. Median PFS was 5.6, 6.0 and 9.0 (P = 0.009) and OS was 25.7, 24.0 and 28.0 months (P = 0.134) in 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR and 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR arms, respectively. Monotherapy maintenance (either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR) was inferior to combination in terms of PFS (hazard ratios [HR] 1.26, P = 0.016) and non-significantly trending also in OS (HR 1.20, P = 0.111). An increase of overall any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs and selected AEs was reported in combination compared to either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR arms. CONCLUSIONS This pooled analysis including four randomised phase II supports the use of 5-FU/LV plus anti-EGFR as the preferred maintenance regimen. Data provide rational for a more individualised maintenance treatment approach based on tumour and patients features.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Raimondi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Federico Nichetti
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Computational Oncology Group, Molecular Precision Oncology Program, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arndt Stahler
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Enrique Aranda
- IMIBIC, Universidad de Córdoba, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Giovanni Randon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Annika Kurreck
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Angela M Meade
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, Redhill, England, London, UK
| | - Eduardo Díaz-Rubio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Monica Niger
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Sebastian Stintzing
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Federica Palermo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Tanja Trarbach
- Department of Medical Oncology, Reha-Zentrum am Meer, Bad Zwischenahn, Niedersachsen, Germany
| | - Michele Prisciandaro
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Greta Sommerhäuser
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Berlin, Germany
| | - David Fisher
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, Redhill, England, London, UK
| | - Federica Morano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Filippo Pietrantonio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
| | - Dominik P Modest
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumor Immunology, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Huang S, Ye J, Gao X, Huang X, Huang J, Lu L, Lu C, Li Y, Luo M, Xie M, Lin Y, Liang R. Progress of research on molecular targeted therapies for colorectal cancer. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1160949. [PMID: 37614311 PMCID: PMC10443711 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1160949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 08/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies, accounting for approximately 10% of global cancer incidence and mortality. Approximately 20% of patients with CRC present metastatic disease (mCRC) at the time of diagnosis. Moreover, up to 50% of patients with localized disease eventually metastasize. mCRC encompasses a complex cascade of reactions involving multiple factors and processes, leading to a diverse array of molecular mechanisms. Improved comprehension of the pathways underlying cancer cell development and proliferation, coupled with the accessibility of relevant targeted agents, has propelled advancements in CRC treatment, ultimately leading to enhanced survival rates. Mutations in various pathways and location of the primary tumor in CRC influences the efficacy of targeted agents. This review summarizes available targeted agents for different CRC pathways, with a focus on recent advances in anti-angiogenic and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, BRAF mutations, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-associated targeted agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shilin Huang
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Jiazhou Ye
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Xing Gao
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Xi Huang
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Julu Huang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Lu Lu
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Cheng Lu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Yongqiang Li
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Min Luo
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Mingzhi Xie
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Yan Lin
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| | - Rong Liang
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Stahler A, Hoppe B, Na IK, Keilholz L, Müller L, Karthaus M, Fruehauf S, Graeven U, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Goekkurt E, Kasper S, Kind AJ, Kurreck A, Alig AHS, Held S, Reinacher-Schick A, Heinemann V, Horst D, Jarosch A, Stintzing S, Trarbach T, Modest DP. Consensus Molecular Subtypes as Biomarkers of Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Maintenance Therapy With or Without Panitumumab in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa, AIO KRK 0212). J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:2975-2987. [PMID: 37018649 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) were evaluated as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) with or without panitumumab (Pmab) after Pmab + mFOLFOX6 induction within the randomized phase II PanaMa trial. METHODS CMSs were determined in the safety set (ie, patients that received induction) and full analysis set (FAS; ie, randomly assigned patients who received maintenance) and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since the start of induction or maintenance treatment and objective response rates (ORRs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI were calculated by univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Of 377 patients of the safety set, 296 (78.5%) had available CMS data: CMS1/2/3/4: 29 (9.8%)/122 (41.2%)/33 (11.2%)/112 (37.8%) and unclassifiable: 17 (5.7%). The CMSs were prognostic biomarkers in terms of PFS (P < .0001), OS (P < .0001), and ORR (P = .02) since the start of induction treatment. In FAS patients (n = 196), with CMS2/4 tumors, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA maintenance therapy was associated with longer PFS (CMS2: HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.95], P = .03; CMS4: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.03], P = .07) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52], P = .66; CMS4: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96], P = .04). The CMS interacted significantly with treatment in terms of PFS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .02; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P = .03) and OS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .03; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P < .001). CONCLUSION The CMS had a prognostic impact on PFS, OS, and ORR in RAS wild-type mCRC. In PanaMa, Pmab + FU/FA maintenance was associated with beneficial outcomes in CMS2/4, whereas no benefit was observed in CMS1/3 tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arndt Stahler
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Beeke Hoppe
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Il-Kang Na
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Center for Regenerative Therapies, Berlin, Germany
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, ECRC Experimental and Clinical Research Center, Berlin, Germany
| | - Luisa Keilholz
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Meinolf Karthaus
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Munich Hospital Neuperlach, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Eray Goekkurt
- Practice of Hematology and Oncology (HOPE), Hamburg, Germany
- University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Stefan Kasper
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, Westdeutsches Tumorzentrum, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Andreas Jay Kind
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Annika Kurreck
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Annabel Helga Sophie Alig
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Anke Reinacher-Schick
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, St Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany
| | - Volker Heinemann
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Medicine III and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - David Horst
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Pathology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Armin Jarosch
- Department of Pathology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Sebastian Stintzing
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tanja Trarbach
- Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, Westdeutsches Tumorzentrum, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany
- Reha-Zentrum am Meer, Bad Zwischenahn, Niedersachsen, Germany
| | - Dominik Paul Modest
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- DKTK, German Cancer Consortium, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Doleschal B, Petzer A, Rumpold H. Current concepts of anti-EGFR targeting in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Oncol 2022; 12:1048166. [PMID: 36465407 PMCID: PMC9714621 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1048166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Anti-EGFR targeting is one of the key strategies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). For almost two decades oncologists have struggled to implement EGFR antibodies in the mCRC continuum of care. Both sidedness and RAS mutational status rank high among the predictive factors for the clinical efficacy of EGFR inhibitors. A prospective phase III trial has recently confirmed that anti-EGFR targeting confers an overall survival benefit only in left sided RAS-wildtype tumors when given in first line. It is a matter of discussion if more clinical benefit can be reached by considering putative primary resistance mechanisms (e.g., HER2, BRAF, PIK3CA, etc.) at this early stage of treatment. The value of this procedure in daily routine clinical utility has not yet been clearly delineated. Re-exposure to EGFR antibodies becomes increasingly crucial in the disease journey of mCRC. Yet re- induction or re-challenge strategies have been problematic as they relied on mathematical models that described the timely decay of EGFR antibody resistant clones. The advent of liquid biopsy and the implementation of more accurate next-generation sequencing (NGS) based high throughput methods allows for tracing of EGFR resistant clones in real time. These displays the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of metastatic disease compared to the former standard radiographic assessment and re-biopsy. These techniques may move EGFR inhibition in mCRC into the area of precision medicine in order to apply EGFR antibodies with the increase or decrease of EGFR resistant clones. This review critically discusses established concepts of tackling the EGFR pathway in mCRC and provides insight into the growing field of liquid biopsy guided personalized approaches of EGFR inhibition in mCRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernhard Doleschal
- Department of Internal Medicine I for Hematology With Stem Cell Transplantation, Hemostaseology and Medical Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Andreas Petzer
- Department of Internal Medicine I for Hematology With Stem Cell Transplantation, Hemostaseology and Medical Oncology, Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Holger Rumpold
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
- Johannes Kepler University Linz, Medical Faculty, Linz, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Poad H, Khan S, Wheaton L, Thomas A, Sweeting M, Bujkiewicz S. The Validity of Surrogate Endpoints in Sub Groups of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Defined by Treatment Class and KRAS Status. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:5391. [PMID: 36358810 PMCID: PMC9654686 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Poad
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| | - Sam Khan
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| | - Lorna Wheaton
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| | - Anne Thomas
- Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| | - Michael Sweeting
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| | - Sylwia Bujkiewicz
- Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yuan M, Wang Z, Lv W, Pan H. The Role of Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibody in mCRC Maintenance Therapy. Front Mol Biosci 2022; 9:870395. [PMID: 35433839 PMCID: PMC9006990 DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.870395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2022] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) combined with chemotherapy in patients with RAS (rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) can alleviate and stabilize the disease, effectively prolong the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and improve the overall response rate (ORR), which is the first-line treatment standard scheme for RAS wild-type mCRC currently. However, whether anti-EGFR mAb can be used for the maintenance treatment after the first-line treatment of mCRC remains controversial. We reviewed the recent studies on anti-EGFR mAb. The contents include five parts, introduction, anti-EGFR mAb in mCRC and its status in first-line therapy, establishment of the maintenance treatment pattern after the standard first-line treatment for mCRC, research progress of anti-EGFR mAb in mCRC maintenance therapy, and conclusion. More studies support the maintenance treatment of anti-EGFR mAb, but some researchers raise the problems about high cost and drug resistance. Despite lack of the maintenance evidence of anti-EGFR mAb, especially lack of large-scale phase III prospective clinical trials, with the emergence of new evidence and more accurate screening of treatment-dominant groups, maintenance therapy with anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy or anti-EGFR mAb combined with fluorouracil-based schemes after first-line chemotherapy combined with anti-EGFR mAb therapy might strive for more treatment opportunities, optimize treatment strategies and prolong treatment continuity, and finally, lead to more survival benefit for suitable patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meiqin Yuan
- The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
- Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
| | - Zeng Wang
- The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Wangxia Lv
- The Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Basic Medicine and Cancer (IBMC), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Hongming Pan
- Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, China
- *Correspondence: Hongming Pan,
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Fucà G, Raimondi A, Prisciandaro M, Lonardi S, Cremolini C, Ratti M, Clavarezza M, Murialdo R, Sartore-Bianchi A, Smiroldo V, Berenato R, Racca P, Bergamo F, Corallo S, Di Bartolomeo M, de Braud F, Morano F, Pietrantonio F. Reinduction of an Anti-EGFR-based First-line Regimen in Patients with RAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in the Valentino Study. Oncologist 2022; 27:e29-e36. [PMID: 35305093 PMCID: PMC8842305 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyab012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 11/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
In patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), growing evidence supports anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) retreatment, whereas little is known on the outcomes of anti-EGFR-based reinduction therapy during the upfront strategy.
Methods
We included patients enrolled in the Valentino study who had disease progression and received at least one dose of post-progression therapy. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for the survival analysis. When comparing the outcomes of anti-EGFR-based reinduction versus any second line, a propensity score–based matching was used.
Results
Liver-limited/single site of disease (P < .001 and P = .002), left-sidedness (P = .029), surgery of metastases (P = .003), early tumor shrinkage, and deeper responses (P = .018 and P = .036) were associated with the use of anti-EGFR-based reinduction versus any other second line. All patients treated with reinduction had an anti-EGFR-free interval of at least 3 months. In the propensity score–matched population, progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the 2 treatment groups, the overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients treated with reinduction (P = .029), and the response rate was higher in patients treated with reinduction (P = .033). An oxaliplatin-free interval ≥12 months, left-sidedness, and molecular hyperselection beyond RAS/BRAF were associated with significantly better outcomes after anti-EGFR-based reinduction.
Conclusions
Reinduction strategies with anti-EGFR-based regimens are commonly used in clinical practice. Our data highlight the importance of clinical–molecular selection for re-treatments and the need for prospective strategy trials in selected populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Fucà
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandra Raimondi
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Michele Prisciandaro
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Sara Lonardi
- Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - Chiara Cremolini
- Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
- Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - Margherita Ratti
- Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, ASST of Cremona, Cremona, Italy
| | - Matteo Clavarezza
- Medical Oncology Unit, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy
| | - Roberto Murialdo
- Department of Internal Medicine (Di.M.I.), University of Genoa and IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy
| | - Andrea Sartore-Bianchi
- Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
- Oncology and Hemato-oncology Department, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Valeria Smiroldo
- Medical Oncology and Hematology Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
| | - Rosa Berenato
- Medical Oncology Unit A.O. Papardo and Department of Human Pathology, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Patrizia Racca
- Colorectal Cancer Unit, Oncology Department, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Francesca Bergamo
- Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - Salvatore Corallo
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Di Bartolomeo
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Filippo de Braud
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
- Oncology and Hemato-oncology Department, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Morano
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Filippo Pietrantonio
- Medical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Modest DP, Karthaus M, Fruehauf S, Graeven U, Müller L, König AO, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Caca K, Kretzschmar A, Goekkurt E, Haas S, Kurreck A, Stahler A, Held S, Jarosch A, Horst D, Reinacher-Schick A, Kasper S, Heinemann V, Stintzing S, Trarbach T. Panitumumab Plus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Versus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Alone as Maintenance Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized PANAMA Trial (AIO KRK 0212). J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:72-82. [PMID: 34533973 PMCID: PMC8683209 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.01332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominik Paul Modest
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany,Dominik Paul Modest, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Tumorimmunology (CVK), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburgerplatz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany; e-mail:
| | - Meinolf Karthaus
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Munich Hospital Neuperlach, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Alexander Otto König
- Department of Gastroenterology, University Medicine Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | | | - Karel Caca
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hematology and Oncology, Hospital Ludwigsburg, Ludwigsburg, Germany
| | | | - Eray Goekkurt
- Practice of Hematology and Oncology (HOPE), Hamburg, Germany,University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Siegfried Haas
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Friedrich-Ebert-Hospital, Neumünster, Germany
| | - Annika Kurreck
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Arndt Stahler
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Swantje Held
- Charité Universitätsmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Armin Jarosch
- Charité Universitätsmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany
| | - David Horst
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany,Charité Universitätsmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Stefan Kasper
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany,Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, Westdeutsches Tumorzentrum, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Volker Heinemann
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany,Department of Medicine III and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospital (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Sebastian Stintzing
- Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumorimmunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Tanja Trarbach
- Zentrum für Tumorbiologie und Integrative Medizin, Klinikum Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelmshaven, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Parisi A, Ghidini M, Giampieri R, Tomasello G, Luciani A, Ferri C, Berardi R, Petrelli F. Post-induction strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2022; 21:e162-e170. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2021.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2021] [Revised: 12/25/2021] [Accepted: 12/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
15
|
Cusano E, Wong C, Taguedong E, Vaska M, Abedin T, Nixon N, Karim S, Tang P, Heng DYC, Ezeife D. Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:4894-4928. [PMID: 34898590 PMCID: PMC8628676 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28060412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Cusano
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
- Correspondence:
| | - Chelsea Wong
- Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
| | - Eddy Taguedong
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada;
| | - Marcus Vaska
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Tasnima Abedin
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Nancy Nixon
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Safiya Karim
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Patricia Tang
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Daniel Y. C. Heng
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Doreen Ezeife
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Parisi A, Cortellini A, Venditti O, Filippi R, Salvatore L, Tortora G, Ghidini M, Nigro O, Gelsomino F, Zurlo IV, Fulgenzi C, Lombardi P, Roselló Keränen S, Depetris I, Giampieri R, Morelli C, Di Marino P, Di Pietro FR, Zanaletti N, Vitale P, Garajova I, Spinelli GP, Zoratto F, Roberto M, Petrillo A, Aimar G, Patruno L, D'Orazio C, Ficorella C, Ferri C, Porzio G. Post-Induction Management in Patients With Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Doublet Regimens: A Multicentre Study. Front Oncol 2021; 11:712053. [PMID: 34778029 PMCID: PMC8579084 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.712053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. Methods This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians’ attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR). Results At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9–35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3–17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4–14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1–20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0–11.2, 136 events), respectively (p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5–47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6–40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2–50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6–27.6, 99 events), respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44–0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38–0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts. Conclusion Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a “real-life” setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Parisi
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Alessio Cortellini
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Olga Venditti
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Roberto Filippi
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.,Division of Medical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, Fondazione Del Piemonte Per L'oncologia-Istiruto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (FPO-IRCCS), Candiolo, Italy.,Centro Oncologico Ematologico Subalpino, Azienda Universitaria Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Lisa Salvatore
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.,Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Giampaolo Tortora
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.,Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Michele Ghidini
- Medical Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
| | - Olga Nigro
- Medical Oncology, ASST Sette Laghi, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, Varese, Italy
| | - Fabio Gelsomino
- Department of Oncology and Hematology, Division of Oncology, University Hospital of Modena, Modena, Italy
| | | | - Claudia Fulgenzi
- Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico, University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Pasquale Lombardi
- Division of Medical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, Fondazione Del Piemonte Per L'oncologia-Istiruto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (FPO-IRCCS), Candiolo, Italy
| | - Susana Roselló Keränen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, INCLIVA Biomedical Research Institute, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.,CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ilaria Depetris
- Medical Oncology, ASL TO4, Ospedale Civile di Ivrea, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Giampieri
- Clinica Oncologica e Centro Regionale di Genetica Oncologica, Università Politecnica delle Marche, AOU Ospedali Riuniti-Ancona, Ancona, Italy
| | - Cristina Morelli
- Medical Oncology Unit and PhD Program in Systems and Experimental Medicine (XXXV cycle), Tor Vergata University Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Pietro Di Marino
- Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences and Center for Advance Studies and Technology (CAST), G. D'Annunzio University, Chieti, Italy.,Clinical Oncology Unit, S.S. Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy
| | | | - Nicoletta Zanaletti
- Experimental Clinical Abdominal Oncology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G.Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Pasquale Vitale
- Department of Precision Medicine, Università della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - Ingrid Garajova
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | - Gian Paolo Spinelli
- UOC Territorial Oncology-AUSL Latina-CdS Aprilia-University of Rome "Sapienza", Rome, Italy
| | | | - Michela Roberto
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Oncology Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Giacomo Aimar
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.,Division of Medical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, Fondazione Del Piemonte Per L'oncologia-Istiruto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (FPO-IRCCS), Candiolo, Italy
| | - Leonardo Patruno
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Carla D'Orazio
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Corrado Ficorella
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Claudio Ferri
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Giampiero Porzio
- Medical Oncology, St. Salvatore Hospital, L'Aquila, Italy.,Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Raimondi A, Fucà G, Leone AG, Lonardi S, Antoniotti C, Smiroldo V, Amatu A, Tampellini M, Ritorto G, Murialdo R, Clavarezza M, Zaniboni A, Berenato R, Ratti M, Corallo S, Morano F, Di Bartolomeo M, Di Maio M, Pietrantonio F. Impact of age and gender on the efficacy and safety of upfront therapy with panitumumab plus FOLFOX followed by panitumumab-based maintenance: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Valentino study. ESMO Open 2021; 6:100246. [PMID: 34416469 PMCID: PMC8379288 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2021] [Revised: 07/23/2021] [Accepted: 07/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients fit enough to receive combination chemotherapy plus biological agents is an issue of growing interest. Also, gender-specific differential toxicity and efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based upfront treatments need to be explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS Valentino was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, investigating two panitumumab-based maintenance strategies following first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. We carried out a subgroup analysis, aimed at assessing the differences in efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) according to age (<70 versus ≥70 years) and gender (male versus female). Efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR); safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). RESULTS No significant differences in terms of PFS, OS and ORR were observed between patients aged <70 or ≥70 years and the effect of the maintenance treatment arm on survival outcomes was similar in the two subgroups. The safety profile of both induction and maintenance treatment and the impact on QoL were similar in elderly and younger patients. No significant differences in PFS, OS, ORR or clinical benefit rate were observed according to gender. A significantly higher rate of overall grade 3/4 AEs (P = 0.008) and of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.017), any grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and any grade conjunctivitis (P = 0.033) was reported in female as compared to male patients. Conversely, we reported a significantly higher incidence of any grade skin rash (P = 0.0007) and hypomagnesemia (P = 0.029) in male patients. CONCLUSIONS The upfront choice of an anti-EGFR-based doublet chemotherapy followed by a maintenance strategy represents a valuable option in RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of gender and age, though a careful evaluation of patients to maximize the risk/benefit ratio is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Raimondi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - G Fucà
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - A G Leone
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - S Lonardi
- Medical Oncology Unit 3, Department of Oncology, Istituto Oncologico Veneto-IRCCS, Padua, Italy
| | - C Antoniotti
- Unit of Medical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy
| | - V Smiroldo
- Medical Oncology and Hematology Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy
| | - A Amatu
- Niguarda Cancer Center, Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - M Tampellini
- Department of Oncology, AOU San Luigi di Orbassano, University of Torino, Orbassano, Italy
| | - G Ritorto
- SSD ColoRectal Cancer Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
| | - R Murialdo
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa and IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy
| | - M Clavarezza
- Medical Oncology Unit, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy
| | - A Zaniboni
- Medical Oncology Unit, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - R Berenato
- Medical Oncology Unit, A.O. Papardo, Messina, Italy
| | - M Ratti
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST Ospedale di Cremona, Cremona, Italy
| | - S Corallo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - F Morano
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - M Di Bartolomeo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - M Di Maio
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Ordine Mauriziano Hospital, Torino, Italy
| | - F Pietrantonio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Martín-Richard M, Tobeña M. First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10030470. [PMID: 33530547 PMCID: PMC7865515 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10030470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Martín-Richard
- Medical Oncology Department, Sant Pau Hospital, 08043 Barcelona, Spain
- Correspondence:
| | - Maria Tobeña
- Medical Oncology Department, Quironsalud Hospital, 50006 Zaragoza, Spain;
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Vera R, Salgado M, Safont MJ, Gallego J, González E, Élez E, Aranda E. Controversies in the treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2020; 23:827-839. [PMID: 32789773 PMCID: PMC7979622 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02475-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Objective To provide guidance for the management of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily practice. Methods Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of seven experts analyzed the current management of RAS wt mCRC, through which they identified controversies, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a group of 30 experts (the expert panel) was selected to test agreement with the statements, through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established in both rounds: 1 = totally agree, 2 = basically agree, 3 = basically disagree, 4 = totally disagree. Agreement was defined if ≥ 75% of answers were in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement). Results Overall, 71 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) tumor location; (3) triplets; (4) maintenance; (5) second-line and beyond treatments; (6) Rechallenge and liquid biopsy. After the two Delphi rounds, only six statements maintained a lack of clear consensus. Conclusions This document aims to describe the expert’s attitude when dealing with several common clinical questions regarding patients with RAS wt mCRC. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12094-020-02475-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Vera
- Medical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - M Salgado
- Medical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain
| | - M J Safont
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - J Gallego
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante, Spain
| | - E González
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - E Élez
- Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Aranda
- Medical Oncology Department, Maimonides Institute of Biomedical Research (IMIBIC), Hospital Reina Sofía, University of Córdoba, Av. Menendez Pidal, s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: in search of the best strategy. Clin Transl Oncol 2020; 22:1205-1215. [PMID: 31898053 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-019-02267-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2019] [Accepted: 12/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Over the last 2 decades, the standard fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy backbone for metastatic colorectal cancer has been complemented by the addition of novel biological agents, achieving impressive increases in 5-year survival rates. Nonetheless, these new combinations have also entailed increases in toxicity, leading to evaluation of de-escalated chemotherapy regimens and "drug holiday" periods in attempts to reduce side effects and optimise quality of life without impairing efficacy. Here, we review the current and emerging evidence for maintenance schedules with chemotherapy and targeted agents, versus continuous treatment after induction treatment, in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.
Collapse
|