Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial

Olaparib with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine as maintenance therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: The randomized phase 3 LYNK-003 study

BACKGROUND

The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis.

METHODS

Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review.

RESULTS

Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04456699.

Prediction of resistance to bevacizumab plus FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer-Results of the prospective multicenter PERMAD trial

BACKGROUND

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are widely used for tumor treatment, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). So far, there are no biomarkers that reliably predict resistance to anti-VEGF mAbs like bevacizumab. A biomarker-guided strategy for early and accurate assessment of resistance could avoid the use of non-effective treatment and improve patient outcomes. We hypothesized that repeated analysis of multiple cytokines and angiogenic growth factors (CAFs) before and during treatment using machine learning could provide an accurate and earlier, i.e., 100 days before conventional radiologic staging, prediction of resistance to first-line mCRC treatment with FOLFOX plus bevacizumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

15 German and Austrian centers prospectively recruited 50 mCRC patients receiving FOLFOX plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment. Plasma samples were collected every two weeks until radiologic progression (RECIST 1.1) as determined by CT scans performed every 2 months. 102 pre-selected CAFs were centrally analyzed using a cytokine multiplex assay (Luminex, Myriad RBM).

RESULTS

Using random forests, we developed a predictive machine learning model that discriminated between the situations of "no progress within 100 days before radiological progress" and "progress within 100 days before radiological progress". We could further identify a combination of ten out of the 102 CAF markers, which fulfilled this task with 78.2% accuracy, 71.8% sensitivity, and 82.5% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a CAF marker combination that indicates treatment resistance to FOLFOX plus bevacizumab in patients with mCRC within 100 days prior to radiologic progress.

Advancing perspectives on the off-label use of anticancer drugs: an updated classification and exploration of categories

To date, the definition that the off-label usage of drugs refers to the unapproved use of approved drugs, which covers unapproved indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration, has been in existence for many years. Currently, there is a limited frequency and prevalence of research on the off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, mainly due to incomplete definition and classification issues. It is time to embrace new categories for the off-label usage of anticancer drugs. This review provided an insight into an updated overview of the concept and categories of the off-label use of anticancer drugs, along with illustrating specific examples to establish the next studies about the extent of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs in the oncology setting. The scope of the off-label use of current anticancer drugs beyond the previous definitions not only includes off-label uses in terms of indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration but also off-label use in terms of medication course, combination, sequence of medication, clinical purpose, contraindications scenarios, etc. In addition, the definition of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs should be added to the condition at a given time, and it varies from approval authorities. We presented a new and relatively comprehensive classification, providing extensive analysis and illustrative examples of the off-label usage of antineoplastic drugs for the first time. Such a classification has the potential to promote practical adoption and enhance management strategies for the off-label use of antitumor drugs.

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

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Maintenance Therapy Using Cetuximab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Study

Purpose

Cetuximab (CET) combined with chemotherapy significantly improved the survival in RAS and RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, while clinical evidence was lacking on the use of maintenance therapy (MT). The study aimed to explore the role of maintenance therapy following Cetuximab + chemotherapy and the optimal Cetuximab-based maintenance therapy regimen.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data on the efficacy and safety of CET-based MT in patients with mCRC who achieved disease control after induction therapy.

Results

Eighty-one patients with mCRC who achieved disease control after CET + chemotherapy induction were enrolled. Overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.5 (95% CI = 8.8-12.2) months and median maintenance/observation PFS (mnPFS) was 6.0 (95% CI = 5.0-7.0) months. Among these 81 patients, 61 patients were prescribed MT (CET alone for 21 patients and CET + chemotherapy for 40 patients). Median PFS and mnPFS in the MT group were significantly longer than those for the non-MT group. Different MT regimens did not affect PFS and mnPFS significantly. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated MT, complete response/partial response during induction therapy, and absence of peritoneal metastasis to be positively associated with longer PFS and mnPFS. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were tolerable during MT, and AE-related deaths were not observed.

Conclusion

MT with CET or CET + chemotherapy was an appropriate option following initial induction chemotherapy for patients with RAS and RAF wild-type mCRC. This strategy endowed survival benefits and a tolerable safety profile.

Prognostic and predictive impact of metastatic organ involvement on maintenance therapy in advanced metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup analysis of patients treated within the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212)

Despite molecular selection, patients (pts) with RAS wildtype mCRC represent a heterogeneous population including diversity in metastatic spread. We investigated metastatic patterns for their prognostic and predictive impact on maintenance therapy with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid ± panitumumab. The study population was stratified according to (1) number of involved metastatic sites (single vs multiple organ metastasis), liver-limited disease vs (2) liver metastasis plus one additional site, and (3) vs liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions were used to correlate efficacy endpoints. Single organ metastasis was observed in 133 pts (53.6%) with 102 pts (41.1%) presenting with liver-limited disease, while multiple organ metastases were reported in 114 pts (46.0). Multiple compared to single organ metastases were associated with less favorable PFS (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13-1.93; P = .004) and OS (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98-1.93; P = .068) of maintenance therapy. While metastatic spread involving one additional extrahepatic site was not associated with clearly impaired survival compared to liver-limited disease, pts with liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites demonstrated less favorable PFS (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83; P < .001), and OS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.51-3.76; P < .001) of maintenance therapy. Pmab-containing maintenance therapy appeared active in both pts with multiple (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; P = .006) as well as to a lesser numerical extent in pts with single organ metastasis (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = .332; Interaction P = .183). These data may support clinical decisions when EGFR-based maintenance therapy is considered.

Blood Vessel-Targeted Therapy in Colorectal Cancer: Current Strategies and Future Perspectives

The vasculature is a key player and regulatory component in the multicellular microenvironment of solid tumors and, consequently, a therapeutic target. In colorectal carcinoma (CRC), antiangiogenic treatment was approved almost 20 years ago, but there are still no valid predictors of response. In addition, treatment resistance has become a problem. Vascular heterogeneity and plasticity due to species-, organ-, and milieu-dependent phenotypic and functional differences of blood vascular cells reduced the hope of being able to apply a standard approach of antiangiogenic therapy to all patients. In addition, the pathological vasculature in CRC is characterized by heterogeneous perfusion, impaired barrier function, immunosuppressive endothelial cell anergy, and metabolic competition-induced microenvironmental stress. Only recently, angiocrine proteins have been identified that are specifically released from vascular cells and can regulate tumor initiation and progression in an autocrine and paracrine manner. In this review, we summarize the history and current strategies for applying antiangiogenic treatment and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities, including normalizing the tumor vasculature, modulating milieu-dependent vascular heterogeneity, and targeting functions of angiocrine proteins. These new strategies could open perspectives for future vascular-targeted and patient-tailored therapy selection in CRC.

Efficacy of different maintenance strategies for RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis

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.

The impact of clinical and translational research on the quality of life during the metastatic colorectal cancer patient journey

The journey of metastatic colorectal cancer patients is complex and challenging, requiring coordination and collaboration between multiple healthcare providers. Understanding patients' needs, fears, feelings, concerns, and behaviors is essential for providing individualized patient-centered care. In recent years, mCRC patients have experienced improvements in clinical outcomes, from 16 months of overall survival to 32 months, thanks to research. However, there is still room for improvement, and integrating clinical and translational research into routine practice can help patients benefit from treatments and techniques that would not be an option. In the Journey of mCRC patients, living well with cancer and quality of life becomes a priority given the outcomes of the disease. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are becoming therefore new estimands in Oncology. Patient advocates represent important figures in this process by prioritizing issues and research questions; evaluating research designs and the performance of the research; the analysis and interpretation of data; and how results are disseminated. Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and shared decision-making is essential for designing treatment strategies for individual patients. Quality of Life is often prioritized only when it comes to refractory advanced disease and end-of-life care, but it has to be integrated from the beginning, as the emotional impact of diagnosis leads to a vulnerable situation where patients' needs and preferences can be easily overseen. First-line treatment will be chosen among more treatment options than subsequent lines, with longer progression-free survival and a bigger impact on the outcomes. Practicing patient-centered care and optimizing first-line treatment for colorectal cancer patients requires a comprehensive understanding of patient experience and treatment outcomes, which can guide clinical practice and inform regulatory decisions for the benefit of patients.

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX regimen as first-line therapy for mCRC: a single-arm, multicenter, phase II study (ALTER-C-001)

Background

Anlotinib showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line therapy in mCRC patients.

Materials and Methods

Eligible patients aged ≥18 with mCRC were enrolled in this multicenter, single-arm, phase II, exploratory study. Patients received at least 6 cycles of anlotinib, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine as initial therapy. Subsequently, patients received anlotinib monotherapy as maintenance therapy until tumor progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Thirty-one patients were included between December 2019 and March 2022. The median follow-up was 17.5 (95% CI, 3.0-17.5) months. The median PFS was 8.3 (95% CI, 6.3-10.0) months, with 6- and 12-month PFS rates of 82.3% (95% CI, 59.2%-93.0%) and 18.9% (95% CI, 4.8%-40.1%), respectively. Fifteen (48.4%) achieved partial response for an ORR of 48.4% (95% CI, 30.2%-66.9%). The disease control rate was 71.0% (95% CI, 52.0%-85.8%) due to 7 (22.6%) stable diseases. The median duration of response was 6.0 (95% CI, 3.6-8.0) months and 1 patient had the longest ongoing response of 17.3 months. Of 24 patients with evaluable imaging, 23 (74.2%) obtained tumor shrinkage. The median PFS (11.0 vs. 6.9 months) and ORR (66.7% vs. 60.0%) for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type were numerically better than those with mutation. Three patients are still ongoing treatment. The grade 3 or more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mainly hypertension (12.9%) and decreased neutrophil count (12.9%). Four (12.9%) had serious TEAEs, primarily including abdominal pain and incomplete intestinal obstruction.

Conclusion

Anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC showed anti-tumor activity and safety profile, which is worth further investigation.

Clinical Trial Registration

chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR1900028417.

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

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.

Progress of research on molecular targeted therapies for colorectal cancer

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.

Maintenance therapy with Fluoropyrimidine and cetuximab or bevacizumab after first line FOLFOX-chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer according to RAS or BRAFV600E mutation status

PURPOSE

Fluoropyrimidine (FP) with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy critically affects the quality of life of patients. Maintenance strategies with FP plus bevacizumab have been well-established; nonetheless, the real-world outcomes of maintenance therapy with FP and cetuximab are unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent maintenance therapy with cetuximab.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified and analyzed patients with mCRC who were treated between 2012 and 2021 with first-line oxaliplatin-based induction chemotherapy (IC) plus biologic agents (either cetuximab or bevacizumab), and underwent maintenance therapy (IC regimen without oxaliplatin) after IC.

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients who were treated with mFOLFOX6 (FP/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) with cetuximab, and 26 patients who were treated with mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab were included. In the cetuximab group, all patients were KRAS-, NRAS-, and BRAF-wild type, whereas most patients in the bevacizumab group harbored KRAS or BRAFV600E or NRAS mutants. During the maintenance treatment, seven patients (four [21%] in the cetuximab group and three [11%] in the bevacizumab group) achieved partial response after achieving nadir during induction chemotherapy. The disease control rates of maintenance therapy were 79% and 74% in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival of maintenance therapy and overall survival was 5.98 months and 32.4 months in the cetuximab group, and 4.83 months and 25.6 months in the bevacizumab group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance therapy with FP plus biologic agents (either bevacizumab or cetuximab) is a feasible strategy for appropriate mCRC patients according to their RAS/BRAF status. Further large-scale randomized studies are needed to validate the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based maintenance therapy.

Maintenance Treatment for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Balancing Therapeutic Intensity with Tolerable Toxicity

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is typically treated with multi-agent chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable cumulative toxicity. For patients whose disease shows ongoing control or response beyond a certain timeframe (≥3-4 months), options include pausing chemotherapy with close monitoring or de-escalating to maintenance therapy with the goal of prolonging progression-free and overall survival while preserving quality of life. There is currently no universally accepted standard of care and a relative dearth of randomized clinical trials in the maintenance setting. Conceptually, such therapy can entail continuing the least toxic components of a first-line regimen and/or introducing novel agent(s) such as the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib, which is presently the only approved drug for maintenance treatment and is limited to a genetically defined subset of patients. In addition to identifying new therapeutic candidates and combinations in the maintenance setting, including targeted agents and immunotherapies, future research should focus on better understanding this unique biologic niche and how treatment in the maintenance setting may be distinct from resistant/refractory disease; identifying molecular predictors for more effective pairing of specific treatments with patients most likely to benefit; and establishing patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials to ensure accurate capture of quality of life metrics.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab as maintenance therapy: a prespecified secondary analysis of the PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial

BACKGROUND

The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial.

METHODS

HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873).

RESULTS

At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

Molecular and genetic targets within metastatic colorectal cancer and associated novel treatment advancements

Colorectal cancer results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide each year, with incidence expected to rise over the next two decades. In the metastatic setting, cytotoxic therapy options remain limited, which is reflected in the meager improvement of patient survival rates. Therefore, focus has turned to the identification of the mutational composition inherent to colorectal cancers and development of therapeutic targeted agents. Herein, we review the most up to date systemic treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the actionable molecular alterations and genetic profiles of colorectal malignancies.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), published in late 2022, were adapted in December 2022, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with mCRC. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian countries. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with mCRC across the different countries of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling and age and stage at presentation, coupled with a disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different countries.

[Metastatic colorectal cancer-Modern treatment strategies and sequences]

The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been considerably expanded and relevantly improved in recent years with new strategies, such as resection of liver and/or lung metastases, induction and maintenance treatment, the establishment of targeted therapies and molecularly defined strategies in defined subgroups. This article presents evidence-based treatment options and algorithms, with a focus on systemic treatment.

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)

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.

Fluoropyrimidine-induced hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity: recommendations for the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are an essential part of the majority of systemic regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of the oral FP S-1 has been approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with or without bevacizumab, for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC in whom it is not possible to continue treatment with another FP due to hand-foot syndrome (HFS) or cardiovascular toxicity (CVT). Subsequently, this indication has been included in the 2022 ESMO guidelines for metastatic CRC. Recommendations for use in daily practice are not available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Based on peer-reviewed published data on the use of S-1 in Western patients with metastatic CRC who switched from infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine to S-1 for reasons of HFS or CVT, recommendations for its use were formulated by an international group of medical oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic CRC and a cardio-oncologist.

RESULTS

In patients who experience pain and/or functional impairment due to HFS during treatment with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU, a switch to S-1 is recommended without prior dose reduction of capecitabine/5-FU. S-1 should preferably be initiated at full dose when HFS has decreased to grade ≤1. In patients with cardiac complaints, in whom an association with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU treatment cannot be excluded, capecitabine/5-FU should be discontinued and a switch to S-1 is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should guide clinicians in daily practice in the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with FP-containing regimens.

Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Management and Treatment

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

Chemotherapy Duration for Various Indications in Colorectal Cancer: a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved and become more personalized during the past several years. For example, depotentiation/reduced duration of systemic therapies has proven to be beneficial in both advanced and early stages of the disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

In particular, recent randomized studies of stage III and high-risk stage II CRC showed that a shorter duration (3 months), when compared to the historical 6-month comparator, provides nearly similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the setting of advanced, inoperable CRC, a relatively short induction phase (six to eight cycles) followed by biological agents is the current standard of care in RAS wild-type (wt). versus RAS mutated cases. With regard to potentially operable stage IV disease (with the aim of converting liver metastases to operability), a relatively short number of cycles (four to six cycles) should be offered with re-staging and re-evaluation for surgery as soon as possible in most cases. For inoperable liver metastases, a relatively intensive triplet or doublet plus targeted therapy may attain conversion in some cases and may even result in cure. Rectal cancer treatment continues to be a complex disease in terms of treatment and oncological results. Recent data seem to showcase the benefits of more prolonged sequential strategies (total neoadjuvant therapy, all treatment delivered before surgery, to reduce the risk of distant metastases and local control). In recent years, different strategies regarding treatment intensity have been employed in CRC in adjuvant and metastatic setting. Introduction of triplets as first-line therapy for colon cancer and as induction phase for rectal cancer are now therapeutic options. Conversely in stage II disease or low-risk stage III resected CRC, a reduced chemotherapy length is a new standard of care.

New developments in targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most lethal cancer worldwide and the prognosis of metastatic CRC (mCRC) remains poor. Recent advancements in translational research have led to the identification of several new therapeutic targets and improved the treatment outcome of patients with tumours harbouring BRAF V600E mutation, (HER2) ErBB2 alterations, NTRK gene fusions and KRAS(G12C) mutation. Improved understanding towards the mechanism of resistance to targeted therapy such as anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies and the evolving role of therapeutic monitoring with circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has enabled the longitudinal tracking of clonal evolution during treatment and the individualization of subsequent treatments. To broaden the community-based implementation of precision oncology in directing targeted therapies for patients with gastrointestinal cancers including mCRC, the feasibility of 'Master Protocols' that utilizes ctDNA-based genotyping platforms is currently being evaluated. Such protocols encompass both observational and interventional clinical trials of novel targeted therapies conducted within a large clinical trial network. In this review, we will discuss the latest developments in targeted therapies, and therapeutic strategies for overcoming acquired drug resistance in patients with mCRC.

Efficacy and safety of metronomic chemotherapy in maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The current studies on metronomic chemotherapy in mCRC are all aimed at patients after multi-line therapy failure, and only a few studies have focused on maintenance treatment after successful first-line therapy.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and VIP were searched, and the relevant data was extracted, including media progression-free survival (mPFS), media overall survival (mOS), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 RCTs showed that metronomic maintenance chemotherapy could significantly improve mPFS compared to observation group; another RCT showed that metronomic maintenance chemotherapy group did not have low mPFS than the bevacizumab maintenance treatment (MT). The final RCT showed that dual-agent metronomic chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab MT did not improve mPFS compared with bevacizumab MT. The 3 RCTs showed that the metronomic maintenance therapy could not effectively improve mOS in mCRC compared to observation group or bevacizumab MT, while another RCT reported that the mOS in metronomic maintenance chemotherapy group was similar to bevacizumab MT. AEs was mostly mild and manageable. Grade ≥ 3 AEs are mostly nonhematological toxicity, and no deaths related to AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review indicates that metronomic chemotherapy for mCRC MT can improve mPFS in some patients and is relatively safe. However, improvements in OS in most RCTs are arguable. Therefore, we need further studies to verify its long-term efficacy.

Current and emerging anti-angiogenic therapies in gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary cancers

Gastrointestinal tumours are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that arise in the gastrointestinal tract and hepatobiliary system. Their incidence is rising globally and they currently represent the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Anti-angiogenic agents have been incorporated into the treatment armamentarium of most of these malignancies and have improved survival outcomes, most notably in colorectal cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. New treatment combinations with immunotherapies and other agents have led to unprecedented benefits and are revolutionising patient care. In this review, we detail the mechanisms of action of anti-angiogenic agents and the preclinical rationale underlying their combinations with immunotherapies. We review the clinical evidence supporting their use across all gastrointestinal tumours, with a particular emphasis on colorectal cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. We discuss available biomarkers of response to these therapies and their utility in routine clinical practice. Finally, we summarise ongoing clinical trials in distinct settings and highlight the preclinical rationale supporting novel combinations.

The Interplay between Anti-Angiogenics and Immunotherapy in Colorectal Cancer

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer is a frequent and lethal neoplasm. The tumor often creates new vessels to grow and spread—a process called ‘angiogenesis’. Therefore, drugs blocking angiogenesis are effective against this malignancy. On the other side, immune checkpoint inhibitors, which unleash the immune system to fight against tumors, have limited efficacy in patients carrying instability of DNA regions called microsatellites. However, there is an interaction between angiogenic factors and the immune system. This gives a chance to combine anti-angiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve the efficacy of treating this malignancy.

Abstract

Angiogenesis, a hallmark of cancer, plays a fundamental role in colorectal cancer (CRC). Anti-angiogenic drugs and chemotherapy represent a standard of care for treating metastatic disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the therapeutic algorithm of many solid tumors. However, the efficacy of ICIs is limited to mCRC patients carrying microsatellite instability (MSI-H), which represent approximately 3–5% of mCRC. Emerging evidence suggests that anti-angiogenic drugs could exhibit immunomodulatory properties. Thus, there is a strong rationale for combining anti-angiogenics and ICIs to improve efficacy in the metastatic setting. Our review summarizes the pre-clinical and clinical evidence regarding the combination of anti-angiogenics and ICIs in mCRC to deepen the possible application in daily clinical practice.

First-line fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab followed by irinotecan-escalation versus initial fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer - Final survival and per-protocol analysis of the randomised XELAVIRI trial (AIO KRK 0110)

BACKGROUND

The randomised open-label phase III XELAVIRI trial failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the sequential application of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab followed by additional irinotecan at first progression (Arm A) versus initial combination of all agents (Arm B) for untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in the initial analysis of time-to-failure-of-strategy (TFS, 90% confidence boundary of 0.8). Here, we evaluate efficacy in the full analysis set (FAS), the per-protocol set, in addition to age-related and molecular subgroups.

METHODS

Median TFS, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Cox regression models assessed hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) (TFS: 90%; OS, PFS: 95%).

RESULTS

Of 421 patients, 390 (92.6%), 391 (92.9%) and 357 (84.8%) events for TFS, OS and PFS were observed in the FAS with a median follow-up of 54.2 months (Arm A) versus 52.9 months (Arm B). Non-inferiority of sequential treatment for TFS was missed in the FAS (HR 0.93; 90% CI, 0.79-1.10; P = 0.482) and not shown in the per-protocol set (HR 0.93; 90% CI, 0.75-1.13, P = 0.433). Formal non-inferiority for TFS was observed for patients older than 70 years (HR 1.06; 90% CI, 0.80-1.41; P = 0.670) and patients with RAS mutant tumours (HR 1.12; 90% CI, 0.87-1.43; P = 0.465). In RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours, combination treatment was significantly superior to sequential therapy in all end-points.

CONCLUSIONS

In the overall population, XELAVIRI just missed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of sequential compared to combination therapy for TFS. However, the non-inferiority of sequential treatment was observed in elderly patients and RAS mutant tumours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration ID (clinicaltrials.gov) NCT01249638.

Spend less to achieve more: Economic analysis of intermittent versus continuous cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the COIN-B clinical trial demonstrated that intermittent cetuximab (IC) was a safe alternative to continuous cetuximab (CC), with less cytotoxic chemotherapy, in first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Cetuximab has been available for this indication in England since 2015, but treatment breaks beyond 6 weeks were prohibited, despite real-world evidence that therapy de-escalation maintains equivalent disease control, but with superior Quality-of-Life (QoL). We performed health economic analyses of IC versus CC and used this evidence to help underpin policy change and guide clinical practice through reduction in unnecessary treatment for mCRC patients.

METHODS

Employing cost-minimization analysis, we conducted partitioned survival modelling (PSM) and Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) simulation to determine costs and quality-adjusted-life-years for IC versus CC.

RESULTS

IC reduced costs by £ 35,763 (PSM; p < 0.001) or £ 30,189 (MCMC) per patient annually, while preserving treatment efficacy and enhancing QoL. Extrapolating to all mCRC patients eligible for cetuximab therapy would have generated cost savings of ~£ 1.2 billion over this cohort's lifetime. These data helped underpin a request to NHS England to remove treatment break restrictions in first-line mCRC therapy, which has been adopted as an interim treatment option policy in colorectal cancer during the Covid-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight substantial cost savings achievable by treatment de-escalation, while also reinforcing the importance of therapy breaks to potentially increase tumour responsiveness and reduce treatment toxicity. Our study also highlights how health economic evidence can influence health policy, championing reduced treatment intensity approaches without compromising patient outcomes, which is of particular relevance when addressing the reduced capacity and treatment backlogs experienced during the pandemic.

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients and methods

Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m² 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m² 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m² b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAF^wt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented.

Results

Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAF^wt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related).

Conclusions

Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAF^wt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

•

MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial of novel combinations in predefined subgroups of patients with mCRC.

•

In cohort 2 (BRAF^wt mCRC), adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab (bev) first-line maintenance therapy did not improve PFS or OS versus FP/bev.

•

ORR and DCR were numerically but not statistically significantly higher with atezolizumab + FP/bev versus FP/bev.

•

The safety profile of atezolizumab + FP/bev was consistent with previous findings with no new safety signals identified.

•

Findings from MODUL cohort 2 indicate that immunotherapy has limited efficacy in patients with microsatellite stable mCRC.

Clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer in the era of precision medicine

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents approximately 10% of all cancers and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths. Initial clinical presentation as metastatic CRC (mCRC) occurs in approximately 20% of patients. Moreover, up to 50% of patients with localized disease eventually develop metastases. Appropriate clinical management of these patients is still a challenging medical issue. Major efforts have been made to unveil the molecular landscape of mCRC. This has resulted in the identification of several druggable tumor molecular targets with the aim of developing personalized treatments for each patient. This review summarizes the improvements in the clinical management of patients with mCRC in the emerging era of precision medicine. In fact, molecular stratification, on which the current treatment algorithm for mCRC is based, although it does not completely represent the complexity of this disease, has been the first significant step toward clinically informative genetic profiling for implementing more effective therapeutic approaches. This has resulted in a clinically relevant increase in mCRC disease control and patient survival. The next steps in the clinical management of mCRC will be to integrate the comprehensive knowledge of tumor gene alterations, of tumor and microenvironment gene and protein expression profiling, of host immune competence as well as the application of the resulting dynamic changes to a precision medicine-based continuum of care for each patient. This approach could result in the identification of individual prognostic and predictive parameters, which could help the clinician in choosing the most appropriate therapeutic program(s) throughout the entire disease journey for each patient with mCRC. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:000-000.

Safety and Activity of PolyPEPI1018 Combined with Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: an Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase Ib Study

PURPOSE

Although chemotherapy is standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), immunotherapy has no role in microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC, a "cold" tumor. PolyPEPI1018 is an off-the-shelf, multi-peptide vaccine derived from 7 tumor-associated antigens (TAA) frequently expressed in mCRC. This study assessed PolyPEPI1018 combined with first-line maintenance therapy in patients with MSS mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eleven patients with MSS mCRC received PolyPEPI1018 and Montanide ISA51VG adjuvant subcutaneously, combined with fluoropyrimidine/biologic following first-line induction with chemotherapy and a biologic (NCT03391232). In Part A of the study, 5 patients received a single dose; in Part B, 6 patients received up to three doses of PolyPEPI1018 every 12 weeks. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives were preliminary efficacy, immunogenicity at peripheral and tumor level, and immune correlates.

RESULTS

PolyPEPI1018 vaccination was safe and well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse event occurred. Eighty percent of patients had CD8+ T-cell responses against ≥3 TAAs. Increased density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were detected post-treatment for 3 of 4 patients' liver biopsies, combined with increased expression of immune-related gene signatures. Three patients had objective response according to RECISTv1.1, and 2 patients qualified for curative surgery. Longer median progression-free survival for patients receiving multiple doses compared with a single dose (12.5 vs. 4.6 months; P = 0.017) suggested a dose-efficacy correlation. The host HLA genotype predicted multi-antigen-specific T-cell responses (P = 0.01) indicative of clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

PolyPEPI1018 added to maintenance chemotherapy for patients with unresectable, MSS mCRC was safe and associated with specific immune responses and antitumor activity warranting further confirmation in a randomized, controlled setting.

Antiangiogenic Drug-Induced Proteinuria as a Prognostic Factor in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Treatment with bevacizumab is known to cause adverse events such as proteinuria and hypertension, amongst others. However, while bevacizumab-induced hypertension has been linked to increased overall survival (OS), data on proteinuria are controversial. We performed a retrospective analysis to observe the influence of adverse events developed during treatment with bevacizumab and chemotherapy on the OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Kaplan–Meier and log-rank analyses were used to assess differences in OS, and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox models. Out of the 3497 mCRC patients admitted to our center between 2014 and 2019, 150 met the criteria for inclusion in our analysis. Out of these, 50.7% experienced proteinuria and had reached a longer OS (40 versus 25 months, p = 0.015) and progression-free survival (15 versus 12 months, p = 0.039). The following groups were identified as having a lower risk of death: patients with proteinuria (HR 0.589; 95% CI 0.402–0.863; p = 0.007), one metastatic site (HR 0.533; 95% CI 0.363–0.783; p = 0.001), and non-metastatic stage at diagnosis (HR 0.459; 95% CI 0.293–0.720; p = 0.001). Patients with anemia and diabetes had an increased risk of death. Proteinuria emerges as a useful prognostic factor in mCRC patients undergoing bevacizumab-based systemic therapy, and it could be easily integrated into the decision-making process, thus allowing physicians to further individualize systemic treatments.

Phase II study of anlotinib in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma as the first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

Anlotinib, an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR 1/2/3, FGFR 1-4, PDGFR a/β, and c-kit, had demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This multicenter, single-arm, phase II, exploratory study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-75 with RAS/BRAF wild-type unresectable mCRC, without prior systemic treatment, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were enrolled. Eligible patients received capecitabine (850 mg/m2, p.o., bid, on day 1-14 every 21 days), oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, i.v., on day 1 every 21 days), and anlotinib (12 mg, p.o., qd, on days 1-14 every 21 days) as induction therapy. Following 6 cycles of therapy, patients who achieved response or stable disease received capecitabine and anlotinib as maintenance therapy until tumor progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (version: 1.1), and the secondary endpoints were PFS, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), and safety.

RESULTS

Between November 2019 and February 2021, 31 patients were enrolled. One patient was excluded for refusing treatment. The primary endpoint of ORR was 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1) with 1 patient achieving a complete response and 22 patients partial response. DCR was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2). At a median follow-up of 14.1 months (95% CI, 9.9-18.3), median PFS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-14.1), and DOR was 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.5-12.7). Twenty-five (83.3%) patients experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). No grade 5 TEAE was reported. The most common grade 3 or 4 TEAEs (>10%) were hypertension (15/30; 50%), neutrophil count decreased (8/30; 26.7%), and diarrhea (4/30; 13.3%). A total of 18 (60%) patients had TEAEs that resulted in dose reduction, interruptions, or delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Anlotinib combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin showed considerable ORR, DCR, PFS, and DOR in the first-line therapy of mCRC with manageable toxicity profiles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04080843.

Phase III Clinical Trial for the Combination of Erlotinib Plus Ramucirumab Compared With Osimertinib in Previously Untreated Advanced or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Positive for the L858R Mutation of EGFR: REVOL858R (WJOG14420L)

INTRODUCTION

Osimertinib is a standard first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR). However, tumors with the L858R mutation appear to be less sensitive to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) than those with exon-19 deletions, and subgroup analysis of the FLAURA study revealed that osimertinib did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) compared with gefitinib or erlotinib in patients with the L858R. The RELAY study revealed a similar high efficacy of combination therapy with erlotinib plus ramucirumab (E+RAM) in patients with L858R and in those with exon-19 deletions. Patients who acquire the TKI resistance-associated T790M mutation during E+RAM treatment can also expect to receive benefit from second-line osimertinib. We have therefore planned a phase III study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of E+RAM compared with osimertinib monotherapy for untreated patients with advanced NSCLC harboring L858R.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 230 patients will be enrolled. The primary end point is time to failure of strategy (TFS), which is defined for this study as the time from randomization of treatment until disease progression or death on osimertinib, or the time from randomization until first disease progression or death of the primary treatment when osimertinib is not administered in the E+RAM group. Secondary end points include OS and progression-free survival.

CONCLUSION

This is the first phase III clinical trial to target only NSCLC patients with the L858R mutation. Its results may establish an optimal treatment for such individuals.

Capecitabine Maintenance Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Many agents have been evaluated as maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but there is no consensus on the optimal regimen. This study assessed the effect of single-agent capecitabine maintenance therapy on the survival outcomes of mCRC patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed according to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing capecitabine as maintenance monotherapy versus active monitoring for mCRC patients. Data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to tumor progression (TTP), adverse events, and quality of life (QoL) scores were extracted. Three RCTs with a total of 576 patients were included. Pooled analyses found neither OS benefit (HR:0.85, 95% CI:0.64–1.13) nor reduction in mortality at 24 months (RR:0.88, 95% CI:0.66–1.17) with capecitabine maintenance. Compared with active monitoring, capecitabine maintenance therapy improved PFS (HR:0.36, 95% CI:0.26–0.61) and reduced the risk of progression at 6 months (HR:0.78, 95% CI:0.56–1.10). The incidence of any grade ≥ 3 toxicity was higher with maintenance therapy than with observation (OR:2.02, 95% CI:1.42–2.88). No difference in terms of QoL was observed. Single-agent capecitabine as maintenance for patients with mCRC provides no OS benefit but results in statistically significant improvement in PFS with increased risk of toxicity. Hence, it may be considered particularly for patients who wish to delay the need for second-line treatment and who can tolerate it well.

The Role of Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibody in mCRC Maintenance Therapy

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.

Reinduction of an Anti-EGFR-based First-line Regimen in Patients with RAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in the Valentino Study

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 &lt; .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.

Precision medicine for metastatic colorectal cancer in clinical practice

Globally, metastatic colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes for cancer-related death. Treatment limited to conventional chemotherapeutics extended life for only a few months. However, advances in surgical approaches and medical treatment regimens have greatly increased survival, even leading to long-term remission in selected patients. Advances in multiomics analysis of tumors have built a foundation for molecular-targeted therapies. Furthermore, immunotherapies are on the edge of revolutionizing oncological practice. This review summarizes recent advances in the growing toolbox of personalized treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We provide an overview of current multimodal therapy and explain novel immunotherapy and targeted therapy approaches in detail. We emphasize clinically relevant therapies, such as inhibitors of MAPK signaling, and give recommendations for clinical practice. Finally, we describe the potential predictive impact of molecular subtypes and provide an outlook on novel concepts, such as functional precision medicine.

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)

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.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial

PURPOSE

Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy.

METHODS

FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

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

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.

Randomized Phase II Trial Evaluating Two Sequential Treatments in First Line of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the PANOPTIMOX-PRODIGE 35 Trial

PURPOSE

Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) still harbors a dismal prognosis. Our previous trial (PRODIGE 4-ACCORD 11) demonstrated the superiority of 6-month chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) over gemcitabine for overall survival. The high limiting oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity supports the evaluation of an oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy and a sequential strategy in mPC.

METHODS

In this phase II study, patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 months of FOLFIRINOX (arm A), 4 months of FOLFIRINOX followed by leucovorin plus fluorouracil maintenance treatment for controlled patients (arm B), or a sequential treatment alternating gemcitabine and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan every 2 months (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival at 6 months.

RESULTS

Between January 2015 and November 2016, 276 patients (mean age: 63 years; range: 40-76 years) were enrolled (A: 91, B: 92, and C: 90). Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity occurred in 10.2% of patients in arm A and 19.8% in arm B. The median ratio of received dose/targeted dose of oxaliplatin was 83% in arm A and 92% in arm B. The 6-month progression-free survival was 47.1% in A, 42.9% in B, and 34.1% in C. The median overall survival was 10.1 months in arm A, 11.2 in arm B, and 7.3 in arm C. Median survival without deterioration in quality-of-life scores was higher in the maintenance arm (11.4 months) than in arms A and C (7.2 and 7.5 months, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Maintenance with leucovorin plus fluorouracil appears to be feasible and effective in patients with mPC controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX. Severe neurotoxicity was higher in the maintenance therapy arm, probably because of the higher cumulative dose of oxaliplatin.