Capecitabine/irinotecan or capecitabine/oxaliplatin in combination with bevacizumab is effective and safe as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study of the AIO colorectal study group

Safety of first-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of first-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was searched from the inception of the databases to August 15, 2023, and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to screen studies. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and R4.3.1 software to compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) among different treatment regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 53 randomized controlled trials, involving 17,351 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), were ultimately included, encompassing 29 different therapeutic approaches. According to SUCRA rankings, the CAPOX regimen is most likely to rank first in terms of safety, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen is most likely to rank last. In terms of specific AEs, the CAPOX regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs (bevacizumab and cetuximab), is associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, as well as an increased risk of thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. The FOLFOX regimen, with or without bevacizumab, is linked to an increased risk of neutropenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy. The FOLFIRI/CAPIRI + bevacizumab regimen is associated with a reduced risk of peripheral sensory neuropathy. S-1 and S-1 + oxaliplatin are well-tolerated in terms of gastrointestinal reactions. The FOLFOXIRI regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs, is associated with various AEs.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the CAPOX regimen may be the safest option among the first-line systemic treatment regimens for mCRC patients, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen may be associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs.

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.

Morphological response and tumor shrinkage as predictive factors in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

Morphologic response (MR) is a novel chemotherapeutic efficacy predictor of solid tumors, especially those treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. Nevertheless, the importance of systemic chemotherapy MR for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of MR as a factor associated with the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for initially unresectable CLM cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the associations between MR and/or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients who received first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab treatment for initially unresectable CLM using multivariate analysis. Patients who showed a complete or partial response based on the RECIST, or an optimal response based on MR, were defined as "responders."

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were examined, including 31 (33%) patients who responded optimally. PFS and OS estimates were comparable in MR responders and non-responders (13.6 vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.47; 26.6 vs. 24.6 months, p = 0.21, respectively). RECIST responders showed better PFS and OS than non-responders (14.8 vs. 8.6 months, p < 0.01; 30.7 vs. 17.8 months, p < 0.01, respectively). The median PFS and OS estimates of MR and RECIST responders were better than those of single responders or non-responders (p < 0.01). Histological type and RECIST response were independently associated with PFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

MR predicts neither PFS nor OS; nevertheless, it may be useful when combined with the RECIST. The Ethics Committee of The Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR approved this study in 2017 (No. 2017-GA-1123): retrospectively registered.

Irinotecan- vs. Oxaliplatin-Based Doublets in KRASG12C-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Multicentre Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

KRAS^G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has recently been recognized as a distinct druggable molecular entity; however, there are limited data on its sensitivity to standard chemotherapy. In the near future, the combination of chemotherapy plus a KRAS^G12C-inhibitor might become the standard of care; however, the optimal chemotherapy backbone is unknown.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective analysis was conducted including KRAS^G12C-mutated mCRC patients treated with first-line FOLFIRI or FOLFOX +/- bevacizumab. Both unmatched and propensity-score-matched analysis (PSMA) were conducted, with PSMA controlling for: previous adjuvant chemotherapy, ECOG PS, use of bevacizumab in first line, timing of metastasis appearance, time from diagnosis to first-line start, number of metastatic sites, presence of mucinous component, gender, and age. Subgroup analyses were also performed to investigate subgroup treatment-effect interactions. KRAS^G12D-mutated patients were analysed as control.

RESULTS

One hundred and four patients treated with irinotecan-(N = 47) or oxaliplatin-based (N = 57) chemotherapy were included. In the unmatched population, objective response rate (ORR) and median (m) progression-free and overall survival (mPFS and mOS) were comparable between the treatment arms. However, a late (>12 months) PFS advantage was observed with irinotecan (HR 0.62, p = 0.02). In the PSMA-derived cohort, a significant improvement with irinotecan vs. oxaliplatin was observed for both PFS and OS: 12- and 24-month PFS rates of 55% vs. 31% and 40% vs. 0% (HR 0.40, p = 0.01) and mOS 37.9 vs. 21.7 months (HR 0.45, p = 0.045), respectively. According to the subgroup analysis, interaction effects between the presence of lung metastases and treatment groups were found in terms of PFS (p for interaction = 0.08) and OS (p for interaction = 0.03), with a higher benefit from irinotecan in patients without lung metastases. No difference between treatment groups was observed in the KRAS^G12D-mutated cohort (N = 153).

CONCLUSIONS

First-line irinotecan-based regimens provided better survival results in KRAS^G12C-mutated mCRC patients and should be preferred over oxaliplatin. These findings should also be considered when investigating chemotherapy plus targeted agent combinations.

Effectiveness and safety of capecitabine, irinotecan and panitumumab in advanced colorectal cancer

Introduction

Capecitabine, irinotecan, and panitumumab (CAPIRI-P) is a controversial regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer, with concerns regarding the efficacy and toxicity. However, its toxicity profile has been improved with dose reduction, and concerns regarding efficacy have been extrapolated from other trials. This retrospective study reports the real-world effectiveness and safety of modified CAPIRI-P (mCAPIRI-P).

Material and methods

Advanced colorectal cancer patients receiving mCAPIPI-P in the first-line setting between July 2019 and December 2021 were analyzed. The progression-free survival on treatment (PFSOT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the association with clinical and disease factors was analyzed using the Cox regression model. Serial changes in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level and treatment toxicity were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 106 patients were included, of whom 97 (92%) and 31 (29%) had left-sided primary and unresectable liver-only disease, respectively. The median PFSOT and OS were 15.4 (95% CI 12.5-18.3) and 25.5 (95% CI 17.6-33.4) months, respectively. Sixteen (51.6%) and 10 (32.3%) liver-only disease patients underwent secondary liver treatment and R0 resection, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, CEA responders (PFSOT: HR 0.53) and CEA normalization (PFSOT: HR 0.27; OS: HR 0.28) were independent favorable prognostic factors for PFSOT and OS. Grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 43%, mainly related to uncomplicated hematological toxicities.

Conclusion

The real-world data show that mCAPIRI-P is safe and effective as the first-line treatment regimen for RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer and warrants further study.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Treatments Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatments, namely, either monotherapy or combination therapy, are commonly administered to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to provide the complete efficacy and safety profiles and ranking of systemic therapies for the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic CRC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until June 30, 2021, and also the bibliographies of relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments, namely, at least capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab, oxaliplatin, or panitumumab were investigated. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for the probability of each treatment as the most effective. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred two publications with 36,147 participants were assigned to 39 different treatments. Among 11 treatments with full information on six outcomes, FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly improved both the ORR and DCR, compared to FOLFIRI. Although FOLFOX and FOLFIRI/FOLFOX + cetuximab significantly prolonged both OS and PFS, treatments were comparable in terms of AEs grade ≥3 and SAEs. The top highest SUCRA values were observed in the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab group for ORR (96%) and DCR (99%), FOLFIRI + bevacizumab + panitumumab group for OS (62%) and PFS (54%), and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab group for AEs grade ≥3 (59%) and SAEs (59%) outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest an available range of systemic treatment therapies with different efficacy and safety profiles with patients. Further investigations of the side effects and mutation status are required to confirm our findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019127772.

Biweekly Raltitrexed Combined With Irinotecan as Second-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase II Trial

Objective

Irinotecan-based doublet chemotherapy strategy was standard second-line backbone for patients with oxaliplatin-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan biweekly administered as the second-line therapy for mCRC patients.

Methods

The study was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized, open-label phase II clinical trial. Patients with mCRC after failure with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine or its derivatives were enrolled. Irinotecan (180 mg/m²) and raltitrexed (2.5 mg/m²) were given intravenously on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Between December 2012 and October 2016, 33 and 35 patients enrolled were assessed for response and safety, respectively. The ORR was 8.6%, and the DCR was 71.4%. The median PFS was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.8-5.2). The median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.5-15.5). Four patients received conversion therapy to no evidence of disease (NED), and 2 patients were still alive with beyond 24 months survival. The most common grade 3/4 AEs were anorexia (14.3%), vomiting (14.3%), nausea (11.4%), fatigue (8.6%), and leukopenia (8.6%). No one died from treatment-related events. The incidence and severity of toxicity were irrelevant to UGT1A1 status.

Conclusions

The combination of irinotecan with raltitrexed is an efficient, convenient, and acceptable toxic regimen for second-line treatment for mCRC patients.

Combination therapy of capecitabine, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: Safety lead-in results from the QUATTRO-II study

Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but demonstrates high neutropenia incidence among Asian patients. Hence, we conducted the randomized phase II QUATTRO-II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04097444; Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier: jRTCs041190072) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (CAPOXIRI) combination plus bevacizumab versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, expecting a lower incidence of neutropenia without compromising the efficacy. Methods We investigated the recommended doses (RD) of oxaliplatin and irinotecan as a safety lead-in portion of Step 1 before initiating the randomized portion as Step 2. Four dose levels of CAPOXIRI (fixed dose of capecitabine, 1600 mg/m2; escalated/de-escalated doses of oxaliplatin and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) were investigated in a 3 + 3 manner. A dose level of ≤ 2/6 of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) cases was expected as the RD. Results In Step 1, we included nine patients (three and six in levels 0 and + 1, respectively). Level 0 (irinotecan, 200 mg/m2; oxaliplatin, 100 mg/m2) did not demonstrate DLTs. In level + 1 (irinotecan, 200 mg/m2; oxaliplatin, 130 mg/m2), although one patient experienced grade 4 febrile neutropenia, no further safety concerns were observed. As a preliminary efficacy result, the objective response rate in all nine patients was 89 % (100 and 83 % in levels 0 and + 1, respectively). Conclusions The RD of CAPOXIRI plus bevacizumab was 200, 130, and 1600 mg/m2 for irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine, respectively, and 7.5 mg/kg for bevacizumab. The randomized portion is still ongoing.

Combination therapy of bevacizumab with either S-1 and irinotecan or mFOLFOX6/CapeOX as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (TRICOLORE): Exploratory analysis of RAS status and primary tumour location in a randomised, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority trial

AIM

The TRICOLORE trial previously demonstrated that S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab was non-inferior, based on progression-free survival (PFS), to 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6)/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOX) plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Overall survival (OS) data were immature at the time of the primary analysis.

METHODS

In total, 487 patients from 53 institutions with previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mFOLFOX6/CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; 3- or 4-week regimen). The final OS data were analysed from follow-up data collected until 30th September 2017.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up period of 48.7 months, median survival times were 32.6 and 34.3 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.10, P = 0.293) and median PFS durations were 10.8 and 14.0 months in the control and experimental groups, respectively (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.71-1.04, P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). In patients with left-sided RAS wild-type tumours, median PFS durations were 11.4 and 16.9 months in the control and experimental groups, respectively (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.96, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab resulted in comparable OS and non-inferior PFS with that of mFOLFOX6/CapeOX plus bevacizumab treatment as first-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC. We recommend the use of S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab as a standard first-line regimen independent of tumour sidedness or RAS status in mCRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR: 000007834.

Development and Validation of a Prognostic Nomogram for Colorectal Cancer Patients With Synchronous Peritoneal Metastasis

Purpose

Synchronous peritoneal metastasis (S-PM) is considered a poor prognostic factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) and there is no nomogram to predict the survival of these patients. In this study, we aimed to use a multicenter data to identify the factors associated with S-PM of CRC to construct a nomogram for predicting the overall survival (OS) of these patients.

Methods

CRC patients with S-PM from two medical centers were enrolled between September 2007 and June 2017. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with OS for the nomogram to predict the 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates in the development group. The concordance index (C-index), calibration plot, relative operating characteristic (ROC) curve with area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the performance of the nomogram in both the development and an external validation group.

Results

277 CRC patients with S-PM in the development group and 68 patients in the validation group were eligible for this study. In multivariate analysis of development group, age, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and chemotherapy were independent variables for OS, based on which the nomogram was built. The C-index of the nomogram in the development and validation group was 0.701 (95% Cl, 0.666–0.736) and 0.716 (95% Cl, 0.622–0.810); demonstrating good discriminative ability. The calibration plots showed satisfactory consistency between actual observation and nomogram-predicted OS probabilities in the development and external validation group. The nomogram showed good predictive accuracy for 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates in both groups with AUC >0.70. An online dynamic webserver was also developed for increasing the ease of the nomogram.

Conclusions

We developed and validated a predictive nomogram with good discriminative and high accuracy to predict the OS in CRC patients with S-PM.

Selection of Oral Therapeutics in China for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Intravenous administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the backbone of treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC) for decades. The availability of oral capecitabine has improved the tolerability and simplified combination schedules. In addition to capecitabine, several other oral drugs have proven efficacy, particularly in palliative treatment lines. Clinical guidelines describe several available third-line treatment options for metastatic CRC (mCRC), but few insights are provided to guide the selection and sequence. In this review, we describe the available evidence and most recent data concerning oral drugs with proven efficacy in CRC, including antiangiogenetic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR TKIs), inhibitors blocking EGFR/Raf/MEK/ERK signaling pathway and modified fluoropyrimidine, and share recommendations and insights on selecting third-line oral therapies for mCRC in China. In general, third-line treatment options for mCRC are mainly regorafenib, fruquintinib, and chemo/targeted therapy reintroduction, while FTD/TPI was rarely used in China probably due to poor accessibility. Fruquintinib is preferred in patients with poor performance status (PS), elder age, and severe organ dysfunction, compared to regorafenib. New drugs of clinical trials were more recommended for the patients with BRAF mutant tumor, and those with good previous treatment efficacy tended to be recommended for chemo/targeted therapy reintroduction. The management of mCRC is evolving, and it must be emphasized that the consideration and recommendations presented here reflect current treatment practices in China and thus might change according to new clinical data as well as the availability of new oral drugs.

Management of BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: a review of treatment options and evidence-based guidelines

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, despite recent improvements in cancer management. CRC, like many malignancies, is a heterogeneous disease, with subtypes characterized by genetic alterations. One common mutation in CRC is in the BRAF gene (most commonly V600E substitution). This occurs in ∼10% of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) and is a marker of poor prognosis.

DESIGN

Herein, we review the clinical and translational literature on the role of the BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of mCRC, its mechanisms as a prognostic marker, and its potential utility as a predictive marker of treatment response. We then summarize the current evidence-based recommendations for management of BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, with a focus on recent clinical research advances in this setting.

RESULTS

The current standard therapies for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC are chemotherapy with bevacizumab as well as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with a good performance status. Combination strategies involving mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade have shown promising results for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. The Binimetinib, Encorafenib, And Cetuximab cOmbiNed to treat BRAF-mutant ColoRectal Cancer (BEACON CRC) study represents the largest study in this population to date and has given strong clinical evidence to support BRAF and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition with the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC has evolved rapidly over the last several years. Recently, combination strategies involving MAPK pathway blockade have shown promising results in BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, and other potential targets continue to be explored. In addition, a greater understanding of the role of BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of CRC should also continue to fuel advances in the management of patients with mCRC harboring this genetic aberration.

Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC.

METHODS

This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82-0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80-1.03, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients' condition or toxicity profiles.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Plus Oxaliplatin- or Irinotecan-Based Doublet Backbone Chemotherapy as the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend combined doublet backbone chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (OX) or irinotecan (IR) as the first-line treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, it is still unknown which is better when combined with bevacizumab (BEV). This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare BEV-IR with BEV-OX regimens in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched studies from databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and conference papers. The outcomes were overall response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, and the incidence of the most common adverse events. The dichotomous data were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the survival outcomes were extracted as the hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 5632 patients were identified. No difference was found in overall survival or overall response rate between BEV-IR and BEV-OX regimens. The pooled progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BEV-IR group than the BEV-OX group (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, p = 0.08). Compared with the BEV-OX group, the BEV-IR group was related to a higher risk of bleeding events (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, p = 0.03), venous thromboembolism (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79, p = 0.0002), and diarrhea (RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.80, p < 0.00001). Conversely, the BEV-OX group was related to a higher risk of thrombocytopenia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67-3.42, p < 0.00001) and neuropathy (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.90-7.64, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The BEV-IR regimen was superior in improving progression-free survival as the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The two different doublet regimens combined with BEV had their specific features of adverse events.

NF1 germline mutation in a Chinese family with colon cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Recent advances in genomic medicine have identified novel gene mutations that contribute to an increased risk of CRC. Here, we describe a diagnosis of colon cancer in a 63-year-old woman and also in her brother. Next-generation sequencing showed that both patients harbored a germline mutation in NF1. The female patient also carried co-mutations in KRAS and NRAS. Furthermore, the NF1 germline mutation was identified in a healthy offspring of the brother. The female patient received three cycles of bevacizumab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin therapy and achieved stable disease of the primary lesion in the colon and partial response of metastasis in the right abdominal cavity. This study highlights the association of NF1 germline mutations with colon cancer.

Protocol of the QUATTRO-II study: a multicenter randomized phase II study comparing CAPOXIRI plus bevacizumab with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (BEV) is highly effective and regarded as one of the standards-of-care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), despite the high incidence of neutropenia and diarrhea as side effects. AXEPT, an Asian phase III study, showed that modified CAPIRI+BEV [capecitabine (CAP: 1600 mg/m2), irinotecan (IRI: 200 mg/m2), and BEV (7.5 mg/m2)] was non-inferior to FOLFIRI+BEV as a second-line therapy for mCRC patients and was associated with a lower incidence of hematologic toxicities. Thus, a reduced dose of the CAP and IRI regimen in combination with oxaliplatin (OX) and BEV (CAPOXIRI+BEV) may be more feasible than FOLFOXIRI+BEV, without compromising efficacy.

METHODS

QUATTRO-II is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study. In Step 1, the recommended doses of OX and IRI will be investigated as a safety lead-in. In Step 2, patients will be randomized to the recommended dose of either CAPOXIRI+BEV or FOLFOXIRI+BEV. Induction triplet chemotherapy plus BEV treatments will be administered for up to 4 months followed by fluoropyrimidine plus BEV maintenance. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). The similarity in PFS between the two arms will be evaluated by observing whether the point estimate of hazard ratio (HR) for PFS falls between 0.80 and 1.25. Ensuring a 70% probability that the observed HR will be "0.8 < HR < 1.25" under the assumption of the true HR of 1.0, and 100 patients will be evaluated during the 3-year study period. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and patient reported outcome (PRO) (FACT/GOG-Ntx4).

DISCUSSION

Considering the lower incidence of hematologic toxicities with modified CAPIRI+BEV than with FOLFIRI+BEV, CAPOXIRI+BEV may be a promising treatment option if sufficient efficacy and lower hematologic toxicities are indicated in this study. Additionally, a lower incidence of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) reported following CAPEOX treatment compared to that after FOLFOX in ACHIEVE, an adjuvant phase III trial, suggest that CAPOXIRI+BEV can mitigate OX-induced PSN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04097444 . Registered September 20, 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04097444 / Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs041190072. Registered October 9, 2019.

The efficacy and safety of irinotecan ± bevacizumab compared with oxaliplatin ± bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Irinotecan (IRI)-based and oxaliplatin (OXA)-based regimens are available for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several studies have published inconsistent results in their comparisons of the efficacy and toxicity of IRI ± bevacizumab and OXA ± bevacizumab. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these 2 regimens in patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We searched several databases to identify relevant studies, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). The secondary comparisons were overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. In addition, the hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) values with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from these studies.

RESULTS

Pooled data of 13 studies demonstrated no significant differences in OS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.08, P = .53) and TTP (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.08, P = .24) between the 2 groups. However, the ORR (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.97, P = .02) was clearly improved in the OXA ± bevacizumab arm. Higher incidences of grade 3/4 nausea (RR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.28-2.07, P < .001), vomiting (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.09-1.81, P = .01), diarrhea (RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.23-1.70, P < .001), and anemia (RR = 4.13, 95% CI: 2.75-6.22, P < .001) were observed in the IRI group. However, the incidences of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.68-0.83, P < .001), thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.26-0.73, P = .002), and paresthesia/neurological disturbances (RR = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.02-0.07, P < .001) were higher in the OXA group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed that the OXA ± bevacizumab regimen as a maintenance therapy significantly improved the ORR in patients with mCRC. Exhibiting strong efficacy and safety, the OXA and OXA plus bevacizumab regimens are preferred as first-line treatments for mCRC.

S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRICOLORE): a randomized, open-label, phase III, noninferiority trial

Background

Combination therapy with oral fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan has not yet been established as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We carried out a randomized, open-label, phase III trial to determine whether S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).

Patients and methods

Patients from 53 institutions who had previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; a 3-week regimen: intravenous infusions of irinotecan 150 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1, oral S-1 80 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest; or a 4-week regimen: irinotecan 100 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, S-1 80 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest). The primary end point was PFS. The noninferiority margin was 1.25; noninferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) of the control group versus the experimental group was less than this margin.

Result

Between June 2012 and September 2014, 487 patients underwent randomization. Two hundred and forty-three patients assigned to the control group and 241 assigned to the experimental group were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 9.6-11.6) in the control group and 14.0 months (95% CI 12.4-15.5) in the experimental group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.02; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority, P = 0.0815 for superiority). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (64.9%) in the control group and 140 (58.6%) in the experimental group had adverse events of grade 3 or higher.

Conclusion

S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment of mCRC and could be a new standard treatment.

Clinical trials number

UMIN000007834.

Sequential Versus Combination Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Fluoropyrimidines, Irinotecan, and Bevacizumab: A Randomized, Controlled Study—XELAVIRI (AIO KRK0110)

Purpose

The XELAVIRI trial investigated the optimal treatment strategy for patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. We tested the noninferiority of initial treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, followed by the addition of irinotecan at first progression (arm A) versus upfront use of fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (arm B) in a 1:1 randomized, controlled phase III trial.

Methods

The primary efficacy end point was time to failure of the strategy (TFS). Given a 90% CI, a power of 70%, and a one-sided α of .05, the margin for noninferiority was set at 0.8. In the case of demonstrated noninferiority of TFS, an analysis of symptomatic toxicities during TFS would define the superior strategy. Secondary end points included the effect of molecular subgroups on efficacy parameters.

Results

A total of 421 randomly assigned patients (arm A: n = 212; arm B: n = 209) formed the full analysis set. Median age was 71 and 69 years, respectively. Noninferiority of TFS was not shown (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 90% CI, 0.73 to 1.02). In detail, patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors benefitted from combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.61; 90% CI, 0.46 to 0.82; P = .005), whereas patients with RAS mutant tumors (HR, 1.09; 90% CI, 0.81 to 1.46; P = .58) did not (Cox model for interaction of study arm and RAS status: P = .03). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival.

Conclusion

Noninferiority of sequential escalation therapy compared with initial combination chemotherapy could not be demonstrated for TFS. RAS status may be important to guide therapy as treatment of patients with upfront combination therapy was clearly superior in RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, whereas sequential escalation chemotherapy seems to provide comparable results in patients with RAS mutant tumors.

Randomized Phase II Trial of CapOX plus Bevacizumab and CapIRI plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment for Japanese Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (CCOG-1201 Study)

PURPOSE

The aim of this randomized, multicenter, noncomparative, phase II trial was to investigate the efficacy and safety of two potential first-line treatments, capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOX) plus bevacizumab (BEV) and capecitabine and irinotecan (CapIRI) plus bevacizumab, in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with untreated mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either CapOX plus bevacizumab (CapOX/BEV arm: bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1 and oral capecitabine 2,000 mg/m² on days 1-14, every 3 weeks) or CapIRI plus bevacizumab (CapIRI/BEV arm: bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg and irinotecan 200 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1,600 mg/m² on days 1-14, every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were enrolled. The intent-to-treat population comprised 54 patients in the CapOX/BEV arm and 53 patients in the CapIRI/BEV arm. The median follow-up period was 35.5 months. ORR was 56% in the CapOX/BEV arm and 55% in the CapIRI/BEV arm. Median PFS and OS were 12.4 and 26.7 months in the CapOX/BEV arm and 11.5 and 28.7 months in the CapIRI/BEV arm, respectively. The frequencies of hematological and nonhematological adverse events above grade 3 were 13% and 30% in the CapOX/BEV arm and 25% and 23% in the CapIRI/BEV arm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CapOX plus bevacizumab and CapIRI plus bevacizumab are equally effective and feasible as the first-line treatments in Japanese patients with mCRC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The CCOG-1201 study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine and oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab and capecitabine and irinotecan plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This article reports on the trial and efforts to define the role of these regimens, including the effect of KRAS status and UGT1A1 polymorphisms in metastatic colorectal cancer.

A randomised phase II study of second-line XELIRI regimen versus irinotecan monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer patients progressed on gemcitabine and cisplatin

Background

The majority of advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) patients will progress after gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) doublet therapy, while the standard second-line regimen has not been established. We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan and capecitabine (XELIRI) regimen vs. irinotecan monotherapy in ABTC patients progressed on GP.

Methods

Sixty-four GP refractory ABTC patients were randomised to either irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–10 of a 14-day cycle (XELIRI-arm) or single-agent irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1 of a 14-day cycle (IRI-arm). Treatments were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the analysis. For XELIRI and IRI-arms, respectively, the median PFS was 3.7 vs. 2.4 months, 9-month survival rate 60.9% vs. 32.0%, median OS 10.1 vs. 7.3 months, and disease control rate 63.3% vs. 50.0%. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were leucopaenia and neutropaenia.

Conclusions

This randomised, phase II study of irinotecan-containing regimens in good PS second-line ABTC patients showed a clear benefit of XELIRI regimen over irinotecan monotherapy in prolonging PFS, with acceptable toxicity.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux^®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix^®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates.

LIMITATIONS

The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Modified XELIRI (capecitabine plus irinotecan) versus FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), both either with or without bevacizumab, as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (AXEPT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Studies of a modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine plus irinotecan) regimen suggest promising efficacy and tolerability profiles in the first-line and second-line settings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the mXELIRI regimen with that of standard FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), with or without bevacizumab in both regimens, as a second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients from 98 hospitals in Japan, China, and South Korea who were aged 20 years or older with histologically confirmed and unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma, and who had withdrawn from first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 800 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days, with or without bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 180 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, fluorouracil 400 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, and a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil [2400 mg/m²], repeated every 14 days, with or without the addition of bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) via a centralised electronic system. We used the minimisation method to stratify randomisation by country, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, previous oxaliplatin treatment, and concomitant bevacizumab treatment. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1·30 for the hazard ratio (HR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996306, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 13, 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=326) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=324). After a median follow-up of 15·8 months (IQR 8·7-24·9), a total of 490 patients had died (242 in the mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab group and 248 in the FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab group) and the median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 15·3-19·1) in the mXELIRI group and 15·4 months (13·0-17·7) in the FOLFIRI group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·71-1·02; p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001). In the per-protocol safety population, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (affecting 52 [17%] of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 133 [43%] of 310 in the FOLFIRI group). Incidences of grade 3-4 diarrhoea were higher in the mXELIRI group (22 [7%]) than in the FOLFIRI group (ten [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 46 (15%) of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 63 (20%) of 310 in the FOLFIRI group. Two treatment-related deaths (one pneumonitis and one lung infection) were observed in the mXELIRI group and there was one treatment-related death (lung infection) in the FOLFIRI group.

INTERPRETATION

mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab in terms of overall survival. mXELIRI could be an alternative to FOLFIRI as a standard second-line backbone treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, at least for Asian patient populations.

FUNDING

Chugai Pharmaceutical and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Inclusion of elderly or frail patients in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been modified since the launching of targeted therapies. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common in elderly patients; their representation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is thus crucial. This study aimed to evaluate and quantify the inclusion of elderly/frail patients in RCTs of targeted therapies in mCRC. A systematic review using Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database and ISI Web of Science was performed to identify all phase II/III RCTs of bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, regorafenib and aflibercept in mCRC until January 2015. Two reviewers independently performed studies selection, and data extraction. The protocol was registered in Prospero (CRD42015016163). Among 1,369, identified publications, 54 RCTs were selected. Nine RCTs (17%) excluded elderly patients; median age of the included population was <65years old in 50 RCTs (93%). Twenty RCTs (37%) excluded frail patients, and many RCTs excluded patients with uncontrolled hypertension or heart failure, patients treated with specific drugs (mainly anticoagulants), and patients with inadequate creatinine clearance. Elderly/frail patients are underrepresented in RCTs studying targeted therapies in mCRC, and those elderly patients included in RCTs do not reflect well the general elderly population with mCRC because of the exclusion criteria. RCTs results concerning targeted therapies can be inferred only to relatively healthy elderly subjects.

Update on optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer from the ACTG/AGITG expert meeting: ECCO 2015

The treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC) has evolved over the last 20 years, from fluoropyrimidines alone to combination chemotherapy and new biologic agents. Median overall survival is now over 24 months for RAS mutated (MT) patients and over 30 months for RAS wild-type (WT) patients. However, there are subgroups of patients with BRAF V600E MT CRC who have a significantly poorer outlook. Newer treatment options are also being explored in select subgroups of patients (anti-HER 2 in HER2 positive mCRC and immunotherapy in patients with defective mismatch repair (dMMR)). The best use of these systemic treatment options, as well as surgery in well-selected patients requires careful consideration of predictive biomarkers and importantly, the optimal sequence in which therapies should be given to derive maximal benefit. A group of colorectal subspecialty medical oncologists from Australia, USA, The Netherlands and Germany met during ECCO 2015 in Vienna to review current practice.

Sequential administration of XELOX and XELIRI is effective, feasible and well tolerated by patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Sequential administration of the chemotherapy regimes capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) and capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI) in the first- to second-line treatment setting would allow patients to be managed more easily in an outpatient unit. However, a small number of studies have raised concerns of cumulative adverse events as a consequence of the continuous use of capecitabine. To investigate this, the present study conducted a retrospective review of 81 consecutive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with the oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin-irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX-FOFIRI/F-F) regimen (n=40) or the XELOX-XELIRI (X-X) regimen (n=41) in first- to second-line chemotherapy in Saitama Medical Center between 2006 and 2012. The disease control rate (DCR), the progression free survival (PFS), the overall survival (OS) and the time to failure of strategy (TFS) from first to second-line chemotherapy, as well as adverse events, were assessed and compared between patients receiving X-X or F-F. A total of 10 and 20 patients were additionally treated with bevacizumab in the F-F and X-X regimens, respectively, during first or second-line chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in DCR and the median PFS between the two regimens for first or second-line chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in the median OS and TFS between the two regimens (OS=24.5 and TFS=14 months in the F-F vs. 23.2 and 12.0 months in the X-X). Regarding adverse events, 45.0% of patients (18/40) exhibited grade 3-4 neutropenia throughout treatment with F-F. Whilst, 15.0% of patients (6/41) exhibited grade 3 hypertension throughout treatment with X-X, which was effectively controlled by a single antihypertensive drug. The results show that sequential administration of X-X is as effective and feasible as F-F treatment, while additionally reducing the frequency of infusion visits and eliminating the need for a central venous access device or home infusion pump, thereby offering a more convenient treatment option to patients with mCRC.

Affinity of Indocyanine Green in the Detection of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Indocyanine green (ICG) is increasingly being used in digestive oncology. In colorectal cancer, ICG can be used to detect lymph node metastasis and hepatic metastasis on the surface of the liver. In peritoneal carcinomatosis, it was previously suspected that the diffusion of ICG in the tumor mass was due to the enhanced permeability and retention effect; however, this phenomenon has not been clearly demonstrated. Using bevacizumab, an antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor that consequently inhibits neoangiogenesis, we sought to confirm the mode of ICG diffusion. We compared the fluorescence of peritoneal carcinomatosis nodules from patients who had previously received bevacizumab during their oncologic treatment with those who did not receive this therapy. The sensitivity of the carcinomatosis nodule fluorescence was higher in the patients who did not receive bevacizumab compared with those who received the drug (76.3% and 65.0%, respectively). The rate of false-negative results was higher in the bevacizumab group than in the group that did not receive the drug (53.8% and 42.9%, respectively). Using bevacizumab, we demonstrate that the enhanced permeability and retention effect causes ICG accumulation in peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting from colorectal cancer.

Study protocol of the Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT): a multinational, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial of second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, comparing the efficacy and safety of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine and irinotecan combination therapy (XELIRI) has been examined at various dose levels to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, in the Association of Medical Oncology of the German Cancer Society (AIO) 0604 trial, tri-weekly XELIRI plus bevacizumab, with reduced doses of irinotecan (200 mg/m2 on day 1) and capecitabine (1600 mg/m2 on days 1-14), repeated every 3 weeks, has shown favorable tolerability and efficacy which were comparable to those of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab. The doses of capecitabine and irinotecan in the AIO trial are considered optimal. In a phase I/II study, XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BIX) as second-line chemotherapy was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in Japanese patients.

METHODS

The Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT) is an East Asian collaborative, open-labelled, randomized, phase III clinical trial which was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus standard FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan combination) with or without bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC. Patients with 20 years of age or older, histologically confirmed mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and disease progression or intolerance of the first-line regimen will be eligible. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive standard FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 2 weeks (FOLIRI arm) or XELIRI with or without bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 3 weeks (XELIRI arm). A total of 464 events were estimated as necessary to show non-inferiority with a power of 80% at a one-sided α of 0.025, requiring a target sample size of 600 patients. The 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of the hazard ratio was pre-specified as less than 1.3.

CONCLUSION

The Asian XELIRI ProjecT is a multinational phase III trial being conducted to provide evidence for XELIRI with or without bevacizumab as a second-line treatment option of mCRC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Experience with S-1 in older Caucasian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Findings from an observational chart review

BACKGROUND

An aging population will increase the number of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there is limited knowledge about treatment in older patients as they are under-represented in clinical trials. The oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 is associated with a lower rate of adverse events than capecitabine and may therefore be a suitable drug for elderly. However, data on the use of S-1 in Caucasian mCRC patients are lacking/scarce.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the present study we evaluated safety and the efficacy of S-1 alone or in combination with oxaliplatin (SOx) or irinotecan (IRIS) in older mCRC patients. Patients who received at least one cycle of S-1 (first-line therapy), SOx (mainly first-line therapy) or IRIS (second-line therapy) were included.

RESULTS

From June 2012 to December 2014, 71 older patients received ≥1 cycle of either S-1 (n = 9), SOx (n = 44) or IRIS (n = 18) for mCRC. Median age was 76 years and most patients had a WHO performance status of 0 (32%) or 1 (56%). All patients were evaluable for response and safety. In the SOx group, 18 (41%) and 20 patients (45%) had partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD), respectively (disease control rate 86%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.5 months and median overall survival (OS) was 18.5 months. In the S-1 group (median age 82 years), PR was 22%, median PFS 6.4 months and median OS 15.8 months. In the IRIS group, PR was 28%, median PFS 7.8 months and the median OS 16.5 months. In general, therapy was well tolerated; main non-hematological toxicities were fatigue and diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

S-1 monotherapy, SOx and IRIS were well tolerated for older patients with mCRC and could become alternative regimens in older mCRC patients. These regimens are now further evaluated in the randomized ongoing NORDIC9 trial.

Outcome according to KRAS-, NRAS- and BRAF-mutation as well as KRAS mutation variants: pooled analysis of five randomized trials in metastatic colorectal cancer by the AIO colorectal cancer study group

In this pooled analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, mutations in KRAS, and BRAF were associated with inferior progression-free and overall survival compared with patients with non-mutated tumors. KRAS exon 2 mutation variants were associated with heterogeneous outcome compared with unmutated tumors with KRAS G12C and G13D being associated with rather poor survival.

Background

To explore the impact of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations as well as KRAS mutation variants in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line therapy.

Patients and methods

A total of 1239 patients from five randomized trials (FIRE-1, FIRE-3, AIOKRK0207, AIOKRK0604, RO91) were included into the analysis. Outcome was evaluated by the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox models.

Results

In 664 tumors, no mutation was detected, 462 tumors were diagnosed with KRAS-, 39 patients with NRAS- and 74 patients with BRAF-mutation. Mutations in KRAS were associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [multivariate hazard ratio (HR) for PFS: 1.20 (1.02–1.42), P = 0.03; multivariate HR for OS: 1.41 (1.17–1.70), P < 0.001]. BRAF mutation was also associated with inferior PFS [multivariate HR: 2.19 (1.59–3.02), P < 0.001] and OS [multivariate HR: 2.99 (2.10–4.25), P < 0.001]. Among specific KRAS mutation variants, the KRAS G12C-variant (n = 28) correlated with inferior OS compared with unmutated tumors [multivariate HR 2.26 (1.25–4.1), P = 0.001]. A similar trend for OS was seen in the KRAS G13D-variant [n = 71, multivariate HR 1.46 (0.96–2.22), P = 0.10]. More frequent KRAS exon 2 variants like G12D [n = 152, multivariate HR 1.17 (0.86–1.6), P = 0.81] and G12V [n = 92, multivariate HR 1.27 (0.87–1.86), P = 0.57] did not have significant impact on OS.

Conclusion

Mutations in KRAS and BRAF were associated with inferior PFS and OS of mCRC patients compared with patients with non-mutated tumors. KRAS exon 2 mutation variants were associated with heterogeneous outcome compared with unmutated tumors with KRAS G12C and G13D (trend) being associated with rather poor survival.

Missing metastases as a model to challenge current therapeutic algorithms in colorectal liver metastases

In oncosurgical approach to colorectal liver metastases, surgery remains considered as the only potentially curative option, while chemotherapy alone represents a strictly palliative treatment. However, missing metastases, defined as metastases disappearing after chemotherapy, represent a unique model to evaluate the curative potential of chemotherapy and to challenge current therapeutic algorithms. We reviewed recent series on missing colorectal liver metastases to evaluate incidence of this phenomenon, predictive factors and rates of cure defined by complete pathologic response in resected missing metastases and sustained clinical response when they were left unresected. According to the progresses in the efficacy of chemotherapeutic regimen, the incidence of missing liver metastases regularly increases these last years. Main predictive factors are small tumor size, low marker level, duration of chemotherapy, and use of intra-arterial chemotherapy. Initial series showed low rates of complete pathologic response in resected missing metastases and high recurrence rates when unresected. However, recent reports describe complete pathologic responses and sustained clinical responses reaching 50%, suggesting that chemotherapy could be curative in some cases. Accordingly, in case of missing colorectal liver metastases, the classical recommendation to resect initial tumor sites might have become partially obsolete. Furthermore, the curative effect of chemotherapy in selected cases could lead to a change of paradigm in patients with unresectable liver-only metastases, using intensive first-line chemotherapy to intentionally induce missing metastases, followed by adjuvant surgery on remnant chemoresistant tumors and close surveillance of initial sites that have been left unresected.

Predictive and prognostic markers in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): personalized medicine at work

This article clarifies prognostic and predictive markers in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Multiple chemotherapeutic drugs are approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but available guidelines are often not helpful in directing drug selections. It would be desirable to define patient populations before chemotherapy by biomarkers that predict outcome and toxicities. RAS mutational evaluation remains the only established biomarker analysis in the treatment of mCRC. BRAF mutant tumors are associated with poor outcome. Chemotherapeutic combination therapies still remain the most active treatments in the armamentarium, and future trials should address the need to prospectively investigate and validate biomarkers.

Targeting of multiple oncogenic signaling pathways by Hsp90 inhibitor alone or in combination with berberine for treatment of colorectal cancer

There is a wide range of drugs and combinations under investigation and/or approved over the last decade to treat colorectal cancer (CRC), but the 5-year survival rate remains poor at stages II-IV. Therefore, new, more-efficient drugs still need to be developed that will hopefully be included in first-line therapy or overcome resistance when it appears, as part of second- or third-line treatments in the near future. In this study, we revealed that heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) inhibitors have high therapeutic potential in CRC according to combinative analysis of NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository and chemical genomic database of Connectivity Map (CMap). We found that second generation Hsp90 inhibitor, NVP-AUY922, significantly downregulated the activities of a broad spectrum of kinases involved in regulating cell growth arrest and death of NVP-AUY922-sensitive CRC cells. To overcome NVP-AUY922-induced upregulation of survivin expression which causes drug insensitivity, we found that combining berberine (BBR), a herbal medicine with potency in inhibiting survivin expression, with NVP-AUY922 resulted in synergistic antiproliferative effects for NVP-AUY922-sensitive and -insensitive CRC cells. Furthermore, we demonstrated that treatment of NVP-AUY922-insensitive CRC cells with the combination of NVP-AUY922 and BBR caused cell growth arrest through inhibiting CDK4 expression and induction of microRNA-296-5p (miR-296-5p)-mediated suppression of Pin1-β-catenin-cyclin D1 signaling pathway. Finally, we found that the expression level of Hsp90 in tumor tissues of CRC was positively correlated with CDK4 and Pin1 expression levels. Taken together, these results indicate that combination of NVP-AUY922 and BBR therapy can inhibit multiple oncogenic signaling pathways of CRC.

Guidelines for diagnosis, staging and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer by Grupo Español Multidisciplinar en Cancer Digestivo (GEMCAD)

Abstract 

Advances in the care of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer arise from well-designed clinical trials. In the present document we address specific challenges in the design of clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer regarding staging and standard of care according to prognosis, as well as some relevant methodological issues.

A phase I/II study of biweekly capecitabine and irinotecan plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Triweekly capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) is not completely regarded as a valid substitute for fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) because of the potential for greater toxicity. We conducted a phase I/II study to assess the efficacy and safety of biweekly XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BV) as second-line chemotherapy for mCRC.

Methods

Patients with mCRC who had received prior chemotherapy including oxaliplatin and BV and had a UGT1A1 genotype of wild-type or heterozygous for UGT1A1*6 or *28 were eligible for this study. Treatment comprised capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily from the evening of day 1 to the morning of day 8, intravenous irinotecan on day 1, and BV 5 mg/kg on day 1 every 2 weeks. The phase I study consisted of two steps (irinotecan 150 and 180 mg/m²), and dose-limiting toxicity was assessed during the first treatment cycle. The primary endpoint of the phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

The recommended dose of irinotecan was determined to be 180 mg/m² in the phase I study. Between November 2010 and August 2013, 44 patients were enrolled in phase II. The patients’ characteristics were as follows (N=44): median age, 60 years (range 32–80); male/female, 21/23; and UGT1A1 wild-type/heterozygous, 29/15. The median PFS was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 5.3–8.2 months), and the primary endpoint was met. Median overall survival was 18.3 months. The response rate was 22.7%. There was no significant difference in PFS or overall survival according to UGT1A1 status. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were mainly neutropenia in six patients and diarrhea in five patients. There were no other severe adverse events or treatment-related deaths.

Conclusion

In mCRC patients with wild-type or heterozygous UGT1A1*6 or *28 genotype, biweekly XELIRI + BV is effective and feasible as second-line chemotherapy. Biweekly XELIRI + BV is considered a valid substitute for FOLFIRI + BV in mCRC.

Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large German community-based observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

After approval of bevacizumab in Germany in 2005 for the treatment of unresectable advanced or refractory colorectal cancer (CRC), this observational cohort study was initiated to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab with various chemotherapy regimen in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To facilitate enrolment of a typical mCRC population, eligibility criteria were minimised. Choice of chemotherapy regimen was at the physicians' discretion, but influenced by current registration status. Predefined endpoints were treatment characteristics, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events assessed as potentially related to bevacizumab treatment. Patients were followed for up to four years.

RESULTS

In total 1777 eligible patients were enrolled at 261 sites from January 2005 to June 2008. Median age: 64 years (range 19-100); male 62%; ECOG performance status 0-1/≥ 2 89%/11%. Chemotherapy choice was fluoropyrimidine (FU) 12%, FU/oxaliplatin 18%, FU/irinotecan 64%, no chemotherapy concurrent to bevacizumab 2% and other 4%. Best investigator-assessed response rate was 60% (complete response 10%, partial response 51%). Median PFS was 10.2 months and median OS was 24.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab in this population of mCRC patients with different chemotherapy regimens is consistent with that observed in other patient registries/non-randomised trials and also corresponds well with data from similar treatment arms of phase III trials.

Recent Therapeutic Advances in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer is a prevalent disease for which novel targeted therapies and biologically based combinations are under development. Cytotoxic chemotherapy doublets (FOLFOX, FOLFIRI) and triplets (FOLFOXIRI) in combination with biologics are standard regimens, and efforts are ongoing to delineate the optimal sequence for each patient based on unique underlying tumor biology. Molecular profiling of metastatic colorectal cancer (including mutational analysis for KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and others) has become increasingly important for identification of prognostic and predictive biomarkers, as well as for insights into the biology that drives the tumor. Large comprehensive analyses such as that of The Cancer Genome Atlas have provided important clues into carcinogenesis and discerned potentially druggable targets for metastatic colorectal cancer. Novel therapeutic agents currently under investigation for subtypes of this disease include immunotherapies such as anti–programmed cell death receptor antibody, cancer stem cell inhibitors, targeted combinations such as BRAF and PI3K inhibitors, and the anti-RAS reovirus Reolysin®.

Meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens, capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI)

The relative efficacy and safety of first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment regimens, capecitabine with irinotecan (CAPIRI) and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI), are not well defined. We identified and subsequently examined seven independent, randomized controlled clinical trials, performing a meta-analysis to compare these two treatment regimens. Using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting to search available literature until February 2014, we identified seven studies comparing safety and efficacy of CAPIRI and FOLFIRI in mCRC patients. These studies were pooled and evaluated for rates of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and diarrhea. CAPIRI and FOLFIRI demonstrated similar efficacy outcomes, though CAPIRI was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea. CAPIRI and FOLFIRI are equally effective options for first-line treatment of mCRC.

XELIRI regimen plus continuous treatment with bevacizumab is well-tolerated and effective in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a second-line setting involving the sequential administration of XELOX and XELIRI

The aim of the present study was to present a retrospective review of 42 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated using the XELIRI regimen as second-line chemotherapy during the period between 2010 and 2012. Patients were treated with capecitabine, 1,600 (≥65 years) or 2,000 mg/m2 (<65 years), on days 1-15, 200 mg/m2 irinotecan (CPT-11) on day 1, with or without 7.5 mg/kg bevacizumab on day 1 and every 21 days. A total of 21 patients underwent XELIRI and 21 underwent XELIRI plus bevacizumab treatment. Fifteen patients received continuous administration of bevacizumab in the first- and second-line settings [bevacizumab beyond progression (BBP)+], whereas 27 patients did not receive the treatment (BBP-). Forty patients (95.2%), including all the patients in the BBP+ group, received sequentially administered XELOX and XELIRI regimens from the first- to the second-line setting. The disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were compared between the BBP- and BBP+ groups. The median relative dose intensity was similar (93.9% for capecitabine and 96.3% for CPT-11 in the BBP- group vs. 94.8% for capecitabine and 91.5% for CPT-11 in the BBP+ group). The DCR was 25.9% in the BBP- and 66.6% in the BBP+ groups (P=0.020). The median PFS was 3.5 months in the BBP- and 7.2 months in the BBP+ groups (P=0.028). The BBP+ group exhibited a higher median OS time compared to the BBP- group (12.5 months in the BBP- group vs. not reached in the BBP+ group; P=0.0267). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event (n≥20) was hypertension observed in the BBP+ group [three patients (20%)]: these three patients were well-controlled with a single antihypertensive drug. Treatment with sequentially administered XELOX and XELIRI regimens did not aggravate adverse events in the 40 patients. The results showed that the XELIRI regimen, involving continuous treatment with bevacizumab, was well-tolerated and effective as a second-line chemotherapy and sequentially administering XELOX and XELIRI was feasible and manageable for patients with mCRC.

Current evidence and controversies in the incorporation of biologics for metastatic colorectal cancer

With the advent of new drugs and therapeutic combinations for metastatic colorectal cancer, the prognosis for this often incurable disease is improving. In addition to traditional cytotoxic chemotherapeutics, targeted biologic therapies, such as cetuximab, panitumumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept and regorafenib, are significantly impacting the treatment of this disease. Recent investigations have focused on determination of the optimal usage of these biologic therapies, but many controversies still exist. Specifically, emerging data regarding appropriate combinations of cytotoxics and biologics in each metastatic colorectal cancer treatment setting, the superiority of particular biologics as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy, dual biologic therapy, use of biologics for conversion or maintenance therapies, and predictive biomarker discovery for biologics are addressed in this article, as these issues are rapidly changing our approach to the treatment of the patient with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Sequencing of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: where to fit the target

Colorectal cancer is a lethal disease if not discovered early. Even though appropriate screening and preventive strategies are in place in many countries, a significant number of patients are still diagnosed at late stages of the disease. The management of metastatic colorectal cancer remains a significant clinical challenge to oncologists worldwide. While cytotoxic regimens constitute the main treatment of choice in this patient population, addition of the five biologics (bevacizumab, cetuximab, aflibercept, panitumumab and regorafenib) to these regimens has improved clinical outcomes. The most commonly used cytotoxic regimens include doublet combinations (FOLFOX/XELOX or FOLFIRI). Many clinical trials have been published and others are underway to compare the biologic agents with one another in order to prove the superiority of one regimen over another. Metastatic colorectal cancer patients have many treatment options; however, the optimal use and sequence of targeted agents remain to be determined. This review entails concise and updated clinical data on the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of the review is to determine where to fit the five biologic targets into the treatment algorithm of metastatic colorectal cancer patients and to derive treatment sequences that would achieve best clinical outcome based on the current available data.

Targeted therapy in gastrointestinal malignancies

Increased understanding of cancer pathogenesis has identified several pathways that serve as potential targets for novel targeted agents in development. The selection of targeted cancer therapy based on biomarkers has instigated a new era of personalized medicine and changed the way we practice oncology. Many targeted agents are approved for treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies most targeting tumor angiogenesis, and many more are in different phases of development. Here we briefly summarize nine different targeted agents that are approved currently in the U.S. and several other agents currently being studied in various gastrointestinal cancers.