A randomized study of KRAS-guided maintenance therapy with bevacizumab, erlotinib or metronomic capecitabine after first-line induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the Nordic ACT2 trial

A stochastic modelling framework for cancer patient trajectories: combining tumour growth, metastasis, and survival

Cancer is a major burden of disease around the globe and one of the leading causes of premature death. The key to improve patient outcomes in modern clinical cancer research is to gain insights into dynamics underlying cancer evolution in order to facilitate the search for effective therapies. However, most cancer data analysis tools are designed for controlled trials and cannot leverage routine clinical data, which are available in far greater quantities. In addition, many cancer models focus on single disease processes in isolation, disregarding interaction. This work proposes a unified stochastic modelling framework for cancer progression that combines (stochastic) processes for tumour growth, metastatic seeding, and patient survival to provide a comprehensive understanding of cancer progression. In addition, our models aim to use non-equidistantly sampled data collected in clinical routine to analyse the whole patient trajectory over the course of the disease. The model formulation features closed-form expressions of the likelihood functions for parameter inference from clinical data. The efficacy of our model approach is demonstrated through a simulation study involving four exemplary models, which utilise both analytic and numerical likelihoods. The results of the simulation studies demonstrate the accuracy and computational efficiency of the analytic likelihood formulations. We found that estimation can retrieve the correct model parameters and reveal the underlying data dynamics, and that this modelling framework is flexible in choosing the precise parameterisation. This work can serve as a foundation for the development of combined stochastic models for guiding personalized therapies in oncology.

Unraveling dynamic interactions between tumor-associated macrophages and consensus molecular subtypes in colorectal cancer: An integrative analysis of single-cell and bulk RNA transcriptome

Background

Accumulating research substantiated that tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) have a significant impact on the tumorigenesis, progression, and distant metastasis, representing a novel target for various cancers. However, the underlying dynamic changes and interactions between TAMs and tumor cells remain largely elusive in colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

We depicted the dynamic changes of macrophages using sing-cell RNA-seq data and extracted TAM differentiation-related genes. Next, we utilized the weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) to acquire CMS-related modular genes using bulk RNA-seq data. Finally, we utilized univariate Cox and Lasso Cox regression analyses to identify TAM differentiation-related biomarkers and established a novel risk signature model. We employed quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) on CRC tissue samples and used immunohistochemistry (IHC) data frome the HPA database to validate the mRNA and protein expression of prognostic genes. The interaction of TAMs and each consensus molecular subtype (CMS) subpopulation was analyzed at the cellular level.

Results

A total of 47,285 cells from single-cell dataset and 1197 CRC patients from bulk dataset were obtained. Among those, 6400 myeloid cells were re-clustered and annotated. RNASE1, F13A1, DAPK1, CLEC10A, RPN2, REG4 and RGS19 were identified as prognostic genes and the risk signature model was established based on the above genes. The qRT-PCR analysis indicated that the expression of RNASE1 and DAPK1 were significantly up-regulated in CRC tumor tissues. The cell-cell communication analysis demonstrated complex interactions between TAMs and CMS malignant cell subpopulations.

Conclusion

This study presents an in-depth dissection of the dynamic features of TAMs in the tumor microenvironment and provides promising therapeutic targets for CRC.

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.

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.

The Validity of Surrogate Endpoints in Sub Groups of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Defined by Treatment Class and KRAS Status

Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.

Camrelizumab and metronomic capecitabine for patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors (McCREST trial)

This is an open-label, single-center, multi-cohort phase Ib trial, which consists of three cohorts, including cohort 1 (HER2 negative gastric or gastric esophageal junction adenocarcinoma), cohort 2 (esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma) and cohort 3 (hepato-biliary-pancreatic and non-stomach non-esophagi gastrointestinal carcinoma). All eligible patients will be treated by camrelizumab (200 mg, every 2 weeks) and capecitabine (500 mg, twice a day, per os). The primary end point is the safety profiles of camrelizumab plus metronomic capecitabine according to CTCAE v5.0. The secondary end points are progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate and duration of response. Planned enrollment is 20 subjects for each cohort. Total duration of this trial is expected to be 2 years.

Metronomic Chemotherapy for Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Literature Review

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is the ultimately lethal form of prostate cancer. Docetaxel chemotherapy was the first life-prolonging treatment for mCRPC; however, the standard maximally tolerated dose (MTD) docetaxel regimen is often not considered for patients with mCRPC who are older and/or frail due to its toxicity. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy (LDMC) is the frequent administration of typically oral and off-patent chemotherapeutics at low doses, which is associated with a superior safety profile and higher tolerability than MTD chemotherapy. We conducted a systematic literature review using the PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE electronic databases to identify clinical studies that examined the impact of LDMC on patients with advanced prostate cancer. The search identified 30 reports that retrospectively or prospectively investigated LDMC, 29 of which focused on mCRPC. Cyclophosphamide was the most commonly used agent integrated into 27/30 (90%) of LDMC regimens. LDMC resulted in a clinical benefit rate of 56.8 ± 24.5% across all studies. Overall, there were only a few non-hematological grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported. As such, LDMC is a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with mCRPC, including those who are older and frail. Furthermore, LDMC is considered more affordable than conventional mCRPC therapies. However, prospective phase III trials are needed to further characterize the efficacy and safety of LDMC in mCRPC before its use in practice.

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.

Cancer patient survival can be parametrized to improve trial precision and reveal time-dependent therapeutic effects

Individual participant data (IPD) from oncology clinical trials is invaluable for identifying factors that influence trial success and failure, improving trial design and interpretation, and comparing pre-clinical studies to clinical outcomes. However, the IPD used to generate published survival curves are not generally publicly available. We impute survival IPD from ~500 arms of Phase 3 oncology trials (representing ~220,000 events) and find that they are well fit by a two-parameter Weibull distribution. Use of Weibull functions with overall survival significantly increases the precision of small arms typical of early phase trials: analysis of a 50-patient trial arm using parametric forms is as precise as traditional, non-parametric analysis of a 90-patient arm. We also show that frequent deviations from the Cox proportional hazards assumption, particularly in trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, arise from time-dependent therapeutic effects. Trial duration therefore has an underappreciated impact on the likelihood of success.

Analysis of more than 150 Phase 3 oncology clinical trials supports parametric statistical analysis, significantly increasing the precision of small early-phase trials and relating deviations from the Cox proportional hazards model to trial duration.

The Crosstalk Between Signaling Pathways and Cancer Metabolism in Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide. Metabolic reprogramming represents an important cancer hallmark in CRC. Reprogramming core metabolic pathways in cancer cells, such as glycolysis, glutaminolysis, oxidative phosphorylation, and lipid metabolism, is essential to increase energy production and biosynthesis of precursors required to support tumor initiation and progression. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that activation of oncogenes and loss of tumor suppressor genes regulate metabolic reprogramming through the downstream signaling pathways. Protein kinases, such as AKT and c-MYC, are the integral components that facilitate the crosstalk between signaling pathways and metabolic pathways in CRC. This review provides an insight into the crosstalk between signaling pathways and metabolic reprogramming in CRC. Targeting CRC metabolism could open a new avenue for developing CRC therapy by discovering metabolic inhibitors and repurposing protein kinase inhibitors/monoclonal antibodies.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of HLX04 Versus Reference Bevacizumab in Combination with XELOX or mFOLFOX6 as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study

Background

HLX04 is a proposed biosimilar of bevacizumab.

Objective

This phase III study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX04 compared with reference bevacizumab in combination with XELOX or mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for recurrent/metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods

In this double-blind, parallel-group study, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive HLX04 or bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks when combined with XELOX; 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks when combined with mFOLFOX6). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival rate at week 36 (PFSR_36w) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1). Prespecified equivalence margins of PFSR_36w were set as − 11 to 15% (rate difference) and 0.8 to 1.25 (rate ratio). Secondary endpoints included efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics.

Results

A total of 677 patients were randomized (HLX04 n = 340; bevacizumab n = 337) between April 2018 and April 2020. PFSR_36w was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.1–51.8) with HLX04 and 50.7% (95% CI 45.4–56.1) with bevacizumab. The rate difference (− 4.2%; 90% CI − 10.6 to 2.1) and rate ratio (0.92; 90% CI 0.80–1.05) both fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. No notable differences were observed between treatment groups in any efficacy endpoints or their subgroup analyses. Safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic profiles were comparable between the two treatment groups.

Conclusions

HLX04 demonstrated equivalent efficacy with similar safety and immunogenicity profiles to reference bevacizumab among patients with recurrent/metastatic CRC, thus offering an alternative treatment option to patients.

Trial registration

Chinadrugtrials.org.cn, CTR20171503 (18 March 2018); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03511963 (30 April 2018).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00484-9.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 20% of patients with CRC have metastases at their first visit. Bevacizumab is a biologic antibody approved in many countries for the treatment of metastatic CRC. However, high treatment costs significantly limit patient access to bevacizumab. Therefore, HLX04, a potential bevacizumab biosimilar, which is almost identical to bevacizumab but less expensive and more accessible, has been developed. This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy (ability of a drug to produce the desired treatment effects), safety, and immunogenicity (ability of a drug to induce immune response that would affect its efficacy and safety) of HLX04 compared with the reference bevacizumab in patients with recurrent/metastatic CRC. Efficacy of the tested drug was evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients without disease progression or death at week 36 (PFSR_36w). Safety was monitored using adverse events and other clinical evaluations. Immunogenicity was assessed by the incidence of antidrug antibodies. Of the 677 patients enrolled in the study, 340 received HLX04 and 337 received bevacizumab. Statistical analyses showed that HLX04 was equivalent to bevacizumab in efficacy evaluations (the difference in PFSR_36w between the two treatment groups fell within the prespecified “equivalence margins”). Moreover, the two treatments were similar with respect to safety and immunogenicity evaluations. In summary, patients responded equally well to HLX04 and bevacizumab, supporting the development of HLX04 as a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab for patients with recurrent/metastatic CRC.

Metronomic Chemotherapy

Simple Summary

The present article reviews the state of the art of metronomic chemotherapy use to treat the principal types of cancers, namely breast, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal ones, and of the most recent progresses in understanding the underlying mechanisms of action. Areas of novelty, in terms of new regimens, new types of cancer suitable for Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) and the overview of current ongoing trials, along with a critical review of them, are also provided.

Abstract

Metronomic chemotherapy treatment (mCHT) refers to the chronic administration of low doses chemotherapy that can sustain prolonged, and active plasma levels of drugs, producing favorable tolerability and it is a new promising therapeutic approach in solid and in hematologic tumors. mCHT has not only a direct effect on tumor cells, but also an action on cell microenvironment, by inhibiting tumor angiogenesis, or promoting immune response and for these reasons can be considered a multi-target therapy itself. Here we review the state of the art of mCHT use in some classical tumour types, such as breast and no small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), see what is new regarding most recent data in different cancer types, such as glioblastoma (GBL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and new drugs with potential metronomic administration. Finally, a look at the strategic use of mCHT in the context of health emergencies, or in low –and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to adequate healthcare is often not easy, is mandatory, as we always need to bear in in mind that equity in care must be a compulsory part of our medical work and research.

Metronomic capecitabine as maintenance treatment after first line induction with XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a priority strategy. However, which medicine is chosen is controversial. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of maintenance treatment with metronomic capecitabine vs observation.In this randomized controlled trial, patients who completed 18 weeks of induction chemotherapy with XELOX and achieved disease control were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive maintenance therapy with metronomic chemotherapy or observation until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival from randomization; secondary endpoints included overall survival and safety. Analyses were performed by intention to treat.Between January 1st, 2017 and December 31th 2018, 48 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive maintenance treatment with metronomic capecitabine (n = 25) or only observation (n = 23). The median progression-free survival in the metronomic capecitabine group was 5.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.25-6.07) months vs 3.98 (95%CI 3.71-4.24) months in the observation group (hazard ratio 0.11, 95% [CI] 0.04-0.26, P = .000). There was no statistically significant difference in median overall survival: 23.82 (95% CI 22.38-25.25) months in the metronomic capecitabine group vs 21.81 (95% CI 20.23-23.38) months in the observation group (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.11, P = .087). Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the primary finding. Similar safety profiles were observed in both arms. The most frequent adverse events in metronomic capecitabine group included neutropenia, diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction, and mucositis.Maintenance therapy with metronomic capecitabine can be considered an alternative option following first-line chemotherapy of XELOX in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with controlled toxicities.

Combination Therapy of High-Dose Rabeprazole Plus Metronomic Capecitabine in Advanced Gastro-Intestinal Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial

Simple Summary

This is the first phase II study of high dose rabeprazole repurposing (1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week) combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP), 1500 mg/daily, in gastrointestinal cancer, aimed at evaluating the activity and safety of high-dose proton pump inhibitor in combination with mCAP as salvage treatment in pretreated patients. A 3-months PFS rate of 66% and 57% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP group, respectively. Although, the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP did not improve mCAP activity, the combination of proton pump inhibitor with chemotherapy would deserve to be further investigated.

Abstract

Background: In recent years, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been investigated at high-dose to modulate tumor microenvironment acidification thus restoring chemotherapeutic sensitivity. This is the first trial to study activity and safety of repurposing high dose rabeprazole combined with metronomic capecitabine (mCAP). Methods: A phase II study in which patients with gastrointestinal cancer, refractory to standard treatments, who had a life expectancy >3 months, were blind randomized 1:1 to mCAP, 1500 mg/daily, continuously with or without rabeprazole 1.5 mg/kg bid, three days a week. The primary endpoint was 3-months progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were clinical benefit (CB) and overall survival (OS). Safety and plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites (5′-DFUR and 5-FU) were also evaluated. Results: Sixty-seven (median age 69 years; 63% male; 84% colorectal cancer, 76% ECOG-PS ≤ 1; 84% pretreated with two or more lines of chemotherapy) out of 90 patients screened for eligibility, were randomized to receive mCAP+rabeprazole (n = 32) vs. mCAP (n = 35). All patients were evaluable for response. No significant difference between mCAP+rabeprazole vs. mCAP, in terms of 3-months PFS rate (HR = 1.43, 95%CI 0.53–3.85; p = 0.477), median PFS (HR = 1.22, 95%CI 0.75–2.00, p = 0.420), CB (RR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.29–2.44; p = 0.786) and median OS (HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.54–1.48; p = 0.664) was observed. However, a 3-year OS rate of 10% and 12% was reported in the mCAP-rabeprazole and mCAP groups, respectively. Overall, no grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred but grade 1 or 2 adverse event of any type were more frequently in the mCAP+rabeprazole group than in the mCAP (OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.03–7.79; p = 0.043). Finally, there was not statistically significant difference in the plasma concentration of capecitabine and its metabolites between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the adjunct of high dose rabeprazole to mCAP was not shown to affect mCAP activity, as PPI are being investigated worldwide as drugs to be repositioned in cancer treatment and also considering the limited sample size as well as the favorable safety profile of the combination in the present study, further clinical investigations are desirable.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.

Effect of Reduced-Dose Capecitabine Plus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy combined with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer followed by low-intensity maintenance therapy to balance the clinical efficacy and adverse effects (AEs). However, there have been concerns about the AEs of capecitabine plus cetuximab as a maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biological activity and safety of capecitabine plus cetuximab as a novel maintenance therapy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 2 prospective clinical trial was conducted from April 29, 2016, to April 29, 2019, at 5 centers in China. Patients diagnosed as having RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were recruited to receive fluorouracil-based cytotoxic agents combined with cetuximab followed by capecitabine plus cetuximab for maintenance therapy. Forty-seven patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer and genetic test results showing a wild-type RAS were enrolled in maintenance therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Induction therapy for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer was 8 to 12 cycles of fluorouracil-based chemotherapy combined with cetuximab. After stable disease status or better was achieved, reduced-dose capecitabine plus cetuximab was administered for maintenance therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was progression-free survival during maintenance therapy. The secondary end points were total progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, safety, and toxic effects of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled in maintenance therapy, with a median age of 52 years (range, 25-81 years) and 32 (68%) of them being men. The median maintenance progression-free survival was 7.2 (95% CI, 5.8-8.6) months. The median progression-free survival was 12.7 (95% CI, 11.8-15.4) months. The median overall survival was 27.4 (95% CI, 21.4-35.5) months. Grade 3 to 4 AEs during induction therapy included neutropenia (4 patients [9%]), diarrhea (4 patients [9%]), nausea or vomiting (3 patients [6%]), rash acneiform (10 patients [21%]), and hand-foot syndrome (8 patients [17%]). Grade 3 to 4 AEs during maintenance therapy included diarrhea (2 patients [4%]), rash acneiform (8 patients [17%]), and hand-foot syndrome (5 patients [11%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Reduced-dose capecitabine plus cetuximab after initial chemotherapy is a novel maintenance therapy for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer that achieved good outcomes and tolerable nonserious AEs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02717923.

Recent clinical evidence on metronomic dosing in controlled clinical trials: a systematic literature review

Introduction: Metronomic dosing is used to give continuous chemotherapy at low doses. The low doses have minimal side effects and may enable cancer treatment to be remodeled toward the management of chronic disease.Methods: We searched PubMed database to obtain relevant clinical trials studying metronomic chemotherapy (MCT). Our main focus was to find controlled phase II and phase III trials.Results: This systematic review summarizes the results of 91 clinical reports focusing on randomized phase II and phase III clinical studies between 2012 and 2018. During that time, nine randomized phase II and 10 randomized phase III studies were published. In the majority of the studies, MCT was well tolerated, and major side effects were rarely seen. Altogether, 4 phase III studies and 4 randomized phase II studies presented positive results and some clinical benefit.Discussion: Most of the studies did not show significantly improved overall survival or progression-free survival. Typically, the metronomic dosing was explored in a maintenance setup and was added to other agents given within normal high doses, whereas no trial was performed challenging metronomic dosing and best supportive care in later treatment lines. Therefore, there is no definite evidence on the efficacy of single metronomic dosing and firm evidence of metronomic dosing is still missing. There is a need for further confirmation of the usefulness of this approach in clinical practice.

Quality of life assessment and reporting in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

BACKGROUND

In this study, our aim was to describe quality of life (QoL) prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in colorectal cancer phase III trials.

METHODS

We included all phase III trials evaluating anticancer drugs in colorectal cancer patients published between 2012 and 2018 by 11 major journals.

RESULTS

Out of the 67 publications identified, in 41 (61.2 %) QoL was not listed among endpoints. Out of 26 primary publications of trials including QoL among endpoints, QoL results were not reported in 10 (38.5 %). Overall, no QoL data were available in 51/67 (76.1 %) primary publications. In particular, in the metastatic setting, QoL data were not available in 12/18 (66.7 %) trials with primary endpoint overall survival, and in 20/29 (69.0 %) trials with other primary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

QoL was absent in a high proportion of recently published phase III trials in colorectal cancer, even in trials of second or further lines, where attention to QoL should be particularly high.

Maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: in search of the best strategy

Over the last 2 decades, the standard fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy backbone for metastatic colorectal cancer has been complemented by the addition of novel biological agents, achieving impressive increases in 5-year survival rates. Nonetheless, these new combinations have also entailed increases in toxicity, leading to evaluation of de-escalated chemotherapy regimens and "drug holiday" periods in attempts to reduce side effects and optimise quality of life without impairing efficacy. Here, we review the current and emerging evidence for maintenance schedules with chemotherapy and targeted agents, versus continuous treatment after induction treatment, in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Metronomic Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Clinical Experience

Metronomic chemotherapy, continuous and dose-dense administration of chemotherapeutic drugs with lowered doses, is being evaluated for substituting, augmenting, or appending conventional maximum tolerated dose regimens, with preclinical and clinical studies for the past few decades. To date, the principle mechanisms of its action include impeding tumoral angiogenesis and modulation of hosts' immune system, affecting directly tumor cells, their progenitors, and neighboring stromal cells. Its better toxicity profile, lower cost, and easier use are main advantages over conventional therapies. The evidence of metronomic chemotherapy for personalized medicine is growing, starting with unfit elderly patients and also for palliative treatment. The literature reviewed in this article mainly demonstrates that metronomic chemotherapy is advantageous for selected patients and for certain types of malignancies, which make it a promising therapeutic approach for filling in the gaps. More clinical studies are needed to establish a solidified role for metronomic chemotherapy with other treatment models in modern cancer management.

Combination strategies based on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors for cancer patients: Pooled analysis and subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Combination therapy based on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is an emerging trend in cancer treatment, but the clinical value of EGFR-TKIs combination therapy remains controversial. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EGFR-TKIs combination therapies with monotherapies, aiming to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EGFR-TKIs based combination therapy and to find a more beneficial combination strategy.

METHODS

We searched for clinical studies that evaluated EGFR-TKIs combination therapy in cancer. We extracted data from these studies to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of overall response rate (ORR) and grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs), the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were identified (n = 3774). Treatments included combinations of EGFR-TKIs and chemotherapy, combinations of EGFR-TKIs and radiotherapy, and combinations of EGFR-TKIs and bevacizumab. EGFR-TKIs combination therapies showed higher ORR [RR: 1.62; 95% confidence interval (95% CI):1.16-2.26; P = .005], PFS (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.64-0.89; P = .001), and OS (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = .013) values than monotherapies. However, higher grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.02-3.15; P = .000) were observed in combination therapy than in monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our pooled analysis and subgroup analysis results showed that the addition of chemotherapy to EGFR-TKIs better benefits PFS and safety. Adding bevacizumab was associated with better ORR and OS. The efficacy and safety of a bevacizumab-EGFR-TKIs-chemotherapy combination should be investigated further.

Bevacizumab and erlotinib versus bevacizumab for colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Improving the survival of patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer requires the use of chemotherapy to be managed with minimum adverse effects. Randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown promising results with a combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib to block two important tumor growth pathways, namely vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor. Aim of the Review We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of the combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib with bevacizumab alone in the maintenance treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, by examining PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity. This study performed a systematic review meta-analysis using existing randomized clinical trial. Methods Randomized controlled trials were systematically reviewed from PubMed, Cochrane library, SCOPUS, CRD, and Google scholar databases. After evaluating the quality of studies through the Cochrane checklist, data of the relevant studies were extracted. This meta-analysis included outcomes of overall survival, progression-free survival of the disease through the hazard ratio, and the upper and lower confidence intervals for the third and fourth degree side effects of relative risk. To perform the meta-analysis for both types of survival, two fixed and random effect models were used. Results A total of three trials, providing data of 682 patients who received maintenance treatment, were included in this meta-analysis. Conclusion The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib significantly increased the overall survival compared to using bevacizumab alone [HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93]. This combination, effectively increased progression-free survival [HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.7-0.93] too. The side effects of diarrhea and grade III rash were more frequent in the group administered bevacizumab plus erlotinib. The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib, in the maintenance treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, significantly improved the overall survival and progression-free survival of patients, and the resulting side effects were easily treatable.

Comparative and combined effectiveness of innovative therapies in cancer: a literature review

To achieve therapeutic innovation in oncology, already expensive novel medicines are often concomitantly combined to potentially enhance effectiveness. While this aggravates the pricing problem, comparing effectiveness of novel yet expensive (concomitant) treatments is much needed for healthcare decision-making to deliver effective but affordable treatments. This study reviewed published clinical trials and real-world studies of targeted and immune therapies. In total, 48 studies compared and/or combined multiple novel products on breast, colorectal, lung and melanoma cancers. To a great extent, products evaluated in each study were owned by one manufacturer. However, cross-manufacturer assessments are also needed. Next to costs and intensive market competition, the absence of a regulatory framework enforcing real-world multiproduct studies prevents these from being conducted. Trusted third parties could facilitate such real-world studies, for which appropriate and efficient data access is needed.

Protein array profiling of circulating angiogenesis-related factors during bevacizumab containing treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Prolonged angiogenesis inhibition may improve treatment outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, due to the complexity of the angiogenic pathways there is a lack of valid predictive biomarkers for anti-angiogenic agents. Here, we describe and optimize a procedure for simultaneous dynamic profiling of multiple angiogenesis related proteins in patient serum to explore associations with the response and acquired resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients (n=22) were selected from a clinical trial investigating maintenance treatment with bevacizumab alone after response to induction chemotherapy + bevacizumab in mCRC. Serum samples were analysed for 55 unique angiogenesis related proteins using a commercial proteome profiler array and a publicly available image analysis program for quantification. Samples were collected at baseline before induction treatment start, at start of maintenance treatment, and at end of treatment after tumour progression.

MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

For eight proteins, the antibody array signals were below detection range in all patient samples. None of the proteins showed levels at baseline or at start of maintenance with strong evidence for correlation to time to progression (lowest nominal p-value 0.03). The dynamic ranges of protein levels measured during the induction treatment period and during the maintenance period were analysed separately for time trends. Evidence for changing trends (up/down) in the levels of MMP-8, TIMP-4 and EGF was observed both during response to induction treatment and at progressive disease, respectively. For three of the proteins (IL-8, Activin A and IGFBP-2), weak evidence for correlation between increasing protein levels during induction with chemotherapy and bevacizumab and time to progression was observed. In conclusion, semi-quantitative profiling of angiogenesis related proteins in patient serum may be a versatile tool to screen for protein patterns aiming at identifying resistance mechanisms of anti-angiogenic treatment in patients with mCRC.

Rationale for the use of metronomic chemotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCT) is endowed with various properties, ranging from antiangiogenic to immunomodulation, and may revert tumor resistance to conventional drug administration. A variety of antineoplastic agents displayed activity when administered with metronomic schedules in preclinical models of gastrointestinal cancers. However, most of the field is still unexplored.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors review the existing literature from PubMed, concerning the use of mCT in gastrointestinal oncology.

EXPERT OPINION

A mounting body of evidence is emerging in support of mCT as a treatment option for gastrointestinal tumors, but the frequent signs of clinical activity inconsistently translate into a benefit for survival. Research in this field should focus on providing high-quality evidence on the safety and efficacy of mCT, with more prospective, comparative trials; identifying the subgroups of patients for whom mCT would be the best approach; establishing standardized protocols based on mCT pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; developing drug activity biomarkers. mCT is also potentially suitable for combinations with targeted antiangiogenic drugs and may be incorporated with conventional administration into dual regimens.

Duration of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: Translating the available evidence into general recommendations for routine practice

Over the last two decades the number of front-line regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer has progressively increased. Nevertheless, there is still no consensus on the optimal duration of treatment or the role of de-escalated/maintenance strategies after induction chemotherapy. In this article we provide an overview of the studies that addressed the duration of first-line systemic treatment with cytotoxic agents plus or minus targeted therapies highlighting caveats and limitations of the same. Also, we try to translate the available evidence into practical recommendations that can be used in everyday practice to inform treatment decisions. The main conclusion of our review article is that continuing induction treatment until progression may improve disease control but there is no evidence to suggest that adopting this practice can prolong survival. On the other hand, de-escalated treatment strategies offer an opportunity to reduce the burden of toxicity while maintaining satisfactory oncological outcomes.

MODUL-a multicenter randomized clinical trial of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy following first-line standard induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: an adaptable signal-seeking approach

PURPOSE

The old approach of one therapeutic for all patients with mCRC is evolving with a need to target specific molecular aberrations or cell-signalling pathways. Molecular screening approaches and new biomarkers are required to fully characterize tumours, identify patients most likely to benefit, and predict treatment response.

METHODS

MODUL is a signal-seeking trial with a design that is highly adaptable, permitting modification of different treatment cohorts and inclusion of further additional cohorts based on novel evidence on new compounds/combinations that emerge during the study.

RESULTS

MODUL is ongoing and its adaptable nature permits timely and efficient recruitment of patients into the most appropriate cohort. Recruitment will take place over approximately 5 years in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. The design of MODUL with ongoing parallel/sequential treatment cohorts means that the overall size and duration of the trial can be modified/prolonged based on accumulation of new data.

CONCLUSIONS

The early success of the current trial suggests that the design may provide definitive leads in a patient-friendly and relatively economical trial structure. Along with other biomarker-driven trials that are currently underway, it is hoped that MODUL will contribute to the continuing evolution of clinical trial design and permit a more 'tailored' approach to the treatment of patients with mCRC.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Who will benefit more from maintenance therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer?

Whether there is a difference in the efficacy of maintenance treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between patients who achieve complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and those with stable disease (SD) after induction treatment is controversial. PubMed, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and databases of conferences were queried to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of maintenance treatment for mCRC patients. The search included articles dated from the inception of these resources until June 20, 2017. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of four regimens as maintenance treatment. Three randomized controlled trials comprising 1,301 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Patients who achieved CR/PR after induction therapy benefited more from maintenance treatment than patients who achieved SD (PFS: HR [CR/PR] 1.50, 95% CI 1.09-2.08, vs. HR [SD] 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.74; OS: HR [CR/PR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, vs. HR [SD] 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.07). The results of network meta-analysis suggested that chemotherapy alone and observation were inferior to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment. Patients with mCRC who achieve CR/PR after induction therapy might benefit more from maintenance treatment than those with SD. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was the most appropriate regimen for maintenance treatment.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I² = 76%; overall survival: I² = 40%; and response rate: I² = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I² = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I² = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I2 = 76%; overall survival: I2 = 40%; and response rate: I2 = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I2 = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I2 = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Vasoactive peptides associate with treatment outcome ofbevacizumab-containing therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a common early adverse event of anti-angiogenic treatment of cancer and may associate with treatment response. However, blood pressure measurement as a surrogate response biomarker has methodological limitations, and predictive biomarkers of angiogenesis inhibitors are lacking. In disease associated with hypertension, vasoactive peptides have been linked to cardiovascular pressure load. Here, we have explored potential associations between circulating levels of vasoactive peptides and tumor response during bevacizumab-containing treatment of colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with available best objective response (ORR) and time to tumor progression (TTP) data were included from a randomized clinical trial investigating maintenance therapy after first line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Midregional-pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM), midregional-pro-atrial-natriuretic-peptide (MR-proANP), and C-terminal-prepro-vasopressin (Copeptin) vasoactive peptide concentrations were measured in plasma at baseline and after 6 weeks of chemotherapy and bevacizumab treatment (n = 97). We determined associations among clinical outcome (ORR and TTP), peptide levels, and hypertension (NCI-CTCAE 4.0 criteria), using Spearman's test, multiple linear regression, and Mann-Whitney's test.

RESULTS

Increasing levels of vasoactive peptides from baseline and after six weeks of treatment were associated with improved treatment outcome (MR-proADM: ORR, p = .0003; TTP, p = .05; MR-proANP: ORR, p = .05; TTP, p = .03; Copeptin: ORR, p = .10; TTP, p = .02). Patients with increasing levels of all three peptides (n = 28) versus increasing levels of one or two peptides (n = 59) showed a median TTP of 284 and 225 d, respectively (p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that increasing systemic levels of vasoactive peptides associate with improved tumor response and TTP in mCRC patients treated with a bevacizumab-containing regimen. These findings support the proposed link between the tumor vasculature and the cardiovascular system of the host. This should motivate further studies that investigate the potential role of vasoactive peptides as a novel class of dynamic biomarkers in the treatment of cancer.

Metronomic Cordycepin Therapy Prolongs Survival of Oral Cancer-Bearing Mice and Inhibits Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition

Cordycepin (3'-deoxyadenosine) is a natural compound abundantly found in Cordyceps sinesis in natural and fermented sources. In this study, we examined the effects of cordycepin in a human oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) xenograft model. Cordycepin was administered in a regular, low-dose and prolonged schedule metronomic therapy. Two doses of cordycepin (25 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg) were administrated five days a week for eight consecutive weeks. The tumor volumes were reduced and survival time was significantly prolonged from 30.3 ± 0.9 days (control group) to 56 days (50 mg/kg group, the day of tumor-bearing mice were sacrificed for welfare consideration). The weights of mice did not change and liver, renal, and hematologic functions were not compromised. Cordycepin inhibited the OSCC cell viability in vitro (IC50 122.4-125.2 μM). Furthermore, morphological characteristics of apoptosis, increased caspase-3 activity and G2/M cell cycle arrest were observed. In wound healing assay, cordycepin restrained the OSCC cell migration. Cordycepin upregulated E-cadherin and downregulated N-cadherin protein expression, implying inhibition of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). The immunohistochemical staining of xenograft tumor with E-cadherin and vimentin validated in vitro results. In conclusion, metronomic cordycepin therapy showed effective tumor control, prolonged survival and low toxicities. Cytotoxicity against cancer cells with apoptotic features and EMT inhibition were observed.

Resistance to metronomic chemotherapy and ways to overcome it

Therapeutic resistance is amongst the major determinants of cancer mortality. Contrary to initial expectations, antivascular therapies are equally prone to inherent or acquired resistance as other cancer treatment modalities. However, studies into resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors revealed distinct mechanisms of resistance compared to conventional cytotoxic therapy. While some of these novel mechanisms of resistance also appear to be functional regarding metronomic chemotherapy, herein we summarize available evidence for mechanisms of resistance specifically described in the context of metronomic chemotherapy. Numerous preclinically identified molecular targets and pathways represent promising avenues to overcome resistance and enhance the benefits achieved with metronomic chemotherapy eventually. However, there are considerable challenges to clinically translate the preclinical findings.

Survival Benefit and Safety of Bevacizumab in Combination with Erlotinib as Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, the need for maintenance chemotherapy arose as a result of the significantly improved survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without increasing adverse events. Currently used maintenance regimens are fluoropyrimidines, bevacizumab, and the combination of fluoropyrimidine with bevacizumab. A new combination with bevacizumab and erlotinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epithelial growth factor receptor, has shown synergistic effects in preclinical tests and promising results in some clinical trials. Whether bevacizumab combined with erlotinib vs. bevacizumab alone as maintenance therapy will further improve the clinical outcomes in patients with mCRC is controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the survival benefit and safety of these two regimens in patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central Registry of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library up to August 2016. We also searched the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (1986 to August 2016). Abstracts were manually searched to identify relevant trials. A total of three randomized controlled trials with 682 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrated that bevacizumab combined with erlotinib significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.78; 95 % confidence interval 0.66-0.93; p = 0.006) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.79; 95 % confidence interval 0.68-0.92; p = 0.002). Significantly more grade 3 rash, diarrhea, infection total, and fatigue were observed in the bevacizumab combined with erlotinib arm, which were controllable and reversible.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, the addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab as maintenance therapy significantly increases overall survival and progression-free survival with an increased but manageable toxicity in patients with mCRC. It should be considered as a treatment option for these patients under the premise of a reasonable selection of the target population.

New chemical treatment options in second-line hepatocellular carcinoma: what to do when sorafenib fails?

INTRODUCTION

There have been no therapies available for patients who experience disease progression after sorafenib treatment. Regorafenib inhibits multiple kinases involved in tumor proliferation and neoangiogenesis, which has produced a survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after sorafenib failure. Other active candidate agents are c-Met inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Areas covered: This paper presents an updated summary of the preclinical and clinical experience with regorafenib, c-Met inhibitors (tivantinib, cabozantinib and tepotinib), and a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) in HCC. The reported data were obtained from abstracts of international conferences and journal articles published up to August 2016 and found in a PubMed search. Expert opinion: Based on favorable data from preclinical and clinical trials, regorafenib, c-Met inhibitor, and checkpoint inhibitors are promising agents for HCC after sorafenib failure. However, further efforts to maximize the survival benefit and minimize adverse events of these drugs in the treatment of HCC are still necessary. Additionally, searching for predictors of good responders could allow these new drugs to be applied in personalized treatments of HCC.

Emerging tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Over the last decade, the addition of antibodies that block the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or angiogenesis to the classic chemotherapy backbone has improved overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the role of the other major targeted therapy, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), is not yet fully clarified.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses key published and ongoing studies with TKIs in mCRC, the mechanisms of resistance to standard treatments that are potentially targetable with these small molecules, along with the role of biomarkers in therapeutic decision-making process.

EXPERT OPINION

The current effectiveness of TKIs is limited by two principal reasons, firstly the use of combination chemotherapy necessitates lower dose-density to manage the toxicity profile and secondly, development of these drugs has mainly been performed in molecularly unselected populations. mCRC is a heterogeneous and dynamic disease, and clinical trials with TKIs must be designed on the basis of specific molecular alterations targeted by these drugs. Success with this approach relies on identifying mutations at the time of progression, raising the importance of minimally-invasive monitoring tools. Liquid biopsies are a promising option, although this technique remains to be validated. Overall, this approach contributes to the move towards personalized and precision therapeutic strategies.

Maintenance based Bevacizumab versus complete stop or continuous therapy after induction therapy in first line treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In stage IV colorectal cancer, bevacizumab-based maintenance therapy, complete stop therapy and continuous therapy are considered all possible approaches after first line induction chemotherapy. However, there are no clear data about which approach is preferable.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All randomized phase III trials comparing bevacizumab-based maintenance therapy (MB) with complete stop therapy (ST) or with continuous therapy (CT) were considered eligible and included into the analysis. Primary endpoint was the Time to failure strategies (TFS). Secondary endpoints were Overall Survival (OS) and Progression free survival (PFS). Meta-analysis was performed in line with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1892 patients of five trials were included into the analysis. A significant improvement in TFS (HR 0.79; CI 95% 0.7-0.9 p=0.0005) and PFS (HR 0.56; CI 95% 0.44-0.71 p<0.00001) were observed in favour of MB versus ST. A trend, but not statistically significant, in favour of MB versus ST was also observed for OS (HR 0.88; CI 95% 0.77-1.01, p=0.08). Comparing maintenance therapy versus continuous therapy no statistically differences were observed in the outcomes evaluated (OS 12 months OR 1.1 p=0.62, OS 24 months OR 1 p=1, OS 36 months OR 0.54 p=0.3, TFS 12 months OR 0.76 p=0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that use of MB approach increases TFS, PFS compared to ST. Although without observing any statistically advantage, it should be highlighted that MB versus ST showed a trend in favour of MB. We observed no difference between MB and CT. MB should be considered the standard regimen in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer after first line induction therapy.

Expert consensus on maintenance treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer in China

The impact of maintenance therapy on progression-free survival and overall survival as well as quality of life of Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has long been under discussion. Recently, some phase III clinical trials have revealed that maintenance therapy can significantly prolong the progression-free survival while maintain an acceptable safety profile. Based on this evidence and common treatment practice in China, we now generated one Expert Consensus on Maintenance Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in China to further specify the necessity of maintenance therapy, suitable candidates for such treatment, and appropriate regimens.