Real-world dosing of regorafenib and outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis using US claims data

BACKGROUND

The randomized, dose-optimization, open-label ReDOS study in US patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that, compared with a standard dosing approach, initiating regorafenib at 80 mg/day and escalating to 160 mg/day depending on tolerability increased the proportion of patients reaching their third treatment cycle and reduced the incidence of adverse events without compromising efficacy. Subsequently, the ReDOS dose-escalation strategy was included as an alternative regorafenib dosing option in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines. A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database to assess whether inclusion of this dose-escalation strategy in NCCN Guidelines has influenced the use of flexible dosing in routine US clinical practice, and to describe clinical outcomes pre- and post-inclusion in NCCN Guidelines.

METHODS

Patients with CRC in the Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart database initiating regorafenib for the first time between January 2016 and June 2020 were stratified based on whether they initiated regorafenib pre- or post-inclusion of ReDOS in NCCN Guidelines, and in two groups: flexible dosing (< 160 mg/day; < 84 tablets in the first treatment cycle) and standard dosing (160 mg/day; ≥ 84 tablets in the first treatment cycle). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who initiated their third treatment cycle and the mean number of treatment cycles per group.

RESULTS

703 patients initiated regorafenib during the study period, of whom 310 (44%) initiated before and 393 (56%) initiated after inclusion of ReDOS in NCCN Guidelines. After inclusion in the guidelines, the proportion of patients who received flexible dosing increased from 21% (n = 66/310) to 45% (n = 178/393), the proportion who received standard dosing decreased from 79% (n = 244/310) to 55% (n = 215/393), the proportion who initiated their third treatment cycle increased from 36% (n = 113/310) to 46% (n = 179/393), and the mean (standard deviation) number of treatment cycles increased from 2.6 (2.9) to 3.2 (3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Following inclusion of ReDOS in NCCN Guidelines, real-world data suggest that US clinicians have markedly increased use of flexible dosing in clinical practice, potentially maximizing clinical benefits and safety outcomes for patients with metastatic CRC receiving regorafenib.

Value-Based Analysis of Therapies in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in US

BACKGROUND

Recent phase 2 trials have provided data supporting regorafenib dose optimization (ReDO) and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) with bevacizumab (TAS-BEV) as treatment options in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Historically, regorafenib standard dose (RSD) and TAS-102 have been utilized as third-line options in mCRC. Given the incorporation of ReDO and TAS-BEV as treatment options, we sought to evaluate relative cost-effectiveness of ReDO vs. RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV for mCRC from a payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for ReDO, RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV. Clinical parameters were obtained from phase 2 and 3 trials for comparators. Health state utility values were from the RSD phase 3 clinical trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were utilized to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, ReDO was dominant over TAS-BEV (ie provided a higher QALY at a lower cost). ReDO produced an ICER of $104,308 per QALY relative to RSD and $37,966 relative to TAS-102. In one-way sensitivity analyses, monthly drug cost of TAS-BEV was the most influential parameter determining relative cost-effectiveness between TAS-BEV and ReDO. When TAS-102 and RSD were independently compared to ReDO, the most influential parameters were related to duration of OS and PFS and costs of managing AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimum dosing strategy for regorafenib has improved its benefit-to-toxicity ratio and relative cost-effectiveness compared to RSD, TAS-102, and TAS-BEV.

Impact of trough concentrations of regorafenib and its major metabolites M-2 and M-5 on overall survival of chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Results from a multicentre GERCOR TEXCAN phase II study

PURPOSE

This prospective pharmacokinetic (PK) ancillary study of the TEXCAN phase II GERCOR trial of patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer and treated with regorafenib (REGO) investigated correlations between overall survival (OS) and concentrations (C) of REGO and its active metabolites, M-2 and M-5.

METHODS

55 patients received REGO 160 mg/day for 21 days of a 28-day cycle (NCT02699073). REGO, M-2, M-5 were measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry assay on day 15 of cycle 1 (C1) and 2 (C2). We studied the association between OS and Cmin of REGO, M-2 and M-5 at C1 and their accumulations between C1 and C2.

RESULTS

Medians of C2/C1 M-2 and M-5 ratios were 0.82 (interquartile range 0.50-1.78) and 0.75 (interquartile range 0.41-1.93), respectively. Patients with C2/C1 M-2 ratio ≥ median had improved survival compared to those < median (12.6 versus 4.0 months, P = 0.023), corresponding to a 66% mortality risk reduction in multivariate analysis. The C2/C1 M-2 ratio correlated with C1 REGO+M-2+M-5 (Csum; P = 0.006). Restricted cubic spline analysis showed an increased OS benefit as the C2/C1 M-2 ratio raises and when C1 Csum ranged between 2.5 and 5.5 mg/L. Patients within the Csum range had a reduced incidence of serious adverse events and improved OS.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified PK parameters associated with a survival benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated by REGO. OS and safety were favourable when C1 REGO+M-2+M-5 Csum ranged between 2.5 and 5.5 mg/L. These results pave the way for individual REGO dose modification strategies based on PK monitoring.

CLINICAL TRIAL REFERENCE

NCT02699073.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in Japanese patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

Regorafenib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that has been established as third-line treatment for patients after the failure of imatinib and sunitinib. However, since clinical data of regorafenib in the Japanese population are still lacking, the management of regorafenib is mainly based on the clinical experience of each oncologist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in a Japanese population.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients treated with regorafenib for metastatic and recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumors were retrospectively enrolled. This study investigated the anti-tumor effect, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and safety, which was evaluated based on the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The median overall survival of patients treated with regorafenib was 23.8 months and the 1-year overall survival rate was 80.0%, the median progression-free survival was 7.1 months and the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 40.2%. The responses to regorafenib were partial response in 3 cases (9.1%), stable disease in 17 (51.5%), progressive disease in 10 (30.3%), and non-evaluable in 3 (9.1%). The disease control rate was 54.0%. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in all patients, with the most common being hand-foot syndrome (72.7%), followed by liver damage (36.4%) and diarrhea (27.3%), and six patients (20.0%) were discontinued due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of Japanese patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with regorafenib. Regorafenib showed efficacy and a manageable safety profile in Japanese patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors, which was comparable with previous studies.

Tackling Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Future Perspectives

Substantial improvements have characterized the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over the past 20 years. Besides strong evidence that supports the use of RAS and BRAF status as prognostic and predictive indicators of disease and response, novel technologies have made possible the incorporation of emerging biomarkers for the management of mCRC. On one hand, the discovery of point mutations, amplifications, fusions, and gene expression profiles highlights the genomic and dynamic complexity of CRC. On the other, such discoveries are leading to newer biomarker-driven strategies that add to existing anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anti-angiogenic approaches. In addition, the availability of a wide molecular profiling has relevant implications for patient prognosis and treatment benefits. Here, we will review the molecular underpinnings and clinical data supporting novel targeted treatments under development for refractory mCRC harboring BRAF mutations, KRAS G12C mutations, HER2 amplification, and less common molecular alterations, such as the re-arrangements of NTRK, ALK, and ROS1. Additionally, we will discuss novel strategies driving the rechallenge of EGFR antibodies and the incorporation of newer anti-angiogenic agents in the therapeutic armamentarium.

Pharmacokinetics of the oral multikinase inhibitor regorafenib and its association with real-world treatment outcomes

Purpose Despite the established activity of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its toxicity profile has limited clinical use. We aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of regorafenib and its active metabolites M-2/M-5, and to clarify the relationships between total drug-related exposure and clinical outcomes in real-world practice. Methods Blood samples at steady state were obtained during Cycle 1 from patients treated with regorafenib. Plasma concentrations of regorafenib and its metabolites were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The efficacy and safety endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), respectively. The exposure-response relationships were assessed. Results Thirty-four Japanese patients with advanced cancers were enrolled (CRC, n = 26; GIST and HCC, each n = 4). Nine patients started regorafenib treatment at the recommended dose of 160 mg once daily (3 weeks on / 1 week off), while the other patients received a reduced starting dose to minimize toxicities. The median PFS was significantly longer in patients achieving total trough concentrations (C_trough) of regorafenib and M-2/M-5 ≥2.9 µg/mL than those who did not (112 vs. 57 days; p = 0.044). Furthermore, the cumulative incidence of DLTs during the first 2 cycles was significantly higher in patients with summed C_trough levels ≥4.3 µg/mL than in others (p = 0.0003). Conclusions Dose titration of regorafenib to achieve drug-related C_trough levels between 2.9 and 4.3 µg/mL in Cycle 1 may improve efficacy and safety, warranting further investigation in a larger patient population.Clinical trial registry: Not applicable.

Sequenced treatment after regorafenib and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: a qualitative clinical review

There is limited evidence-based guidance regarding treatment sequencing and outcomes following regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A targeted literature review was conducted to identify studies with clinical outcomes associated with regorafenib therapy and subsequent treatment following regorafenib therapy. The median overall survival range of the nine studies with sequenced-based survival data was 2.1–19.3 months for regorafenib prior to subsequent therapy in refractory mCRC. Safety outcomes in patients treated with regorafenib prior to other therapies in mCRC were generally comparable to reported adverse events in clinical trials for subsequent agents. Data from this review demonstrate a potential correlation between survival and the use of regorafenib prior to subsequent chemotherapy or targeted therapy in patients with refractory mCRC.

Angiogenesis Inhibitors for Colorectal Cancer. A Review of the Clinical Data

Since the late 1990s, therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has changed considerably, and the combination of doublet or triplet chemotherapy and a targeted agent are now routinely used. The targeting of angiogenesis, the development of new blood vessels, represents a key element in the overall treatment strategy. Since the approval in 2004 of the first anti-angiogenetic drug, multiple agents have been approved and others are currently under investigation. We present an overview of the recent literature on approved systemic treatment of mCRC, with a focus on anti-angiogenic drugs, and current treatment approaches, and elaborate on the future role of angiogenesis in colorectal cancer as seen from a clinical perspective. The treatment of mCRC, in general, has changed from "one strategy fits all" to a more personalized approach. This is, however, not entirely the case for anti-angiogenetic treatments, partly due to a lack of validated biomarkers. The anti-angiogenetic standard treatment at the present primarily includes monoclonal antibodies. The therapeutic field of angiogenesis, however, has received increased interest after the introduction of newer combinations. These approaches will likely change the current treatment strategy, once again, to the overall benefit of patients.

Practical considerations in the use of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer

Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician-patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in pMMR Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Tough Challenge

The introduction of checkpoint inhibitors provided remarkable achievements in several solid tumors but only 5% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, i.e., those with bearing microsatellite instable (MSI-high)/deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors, benefit from this approach. The favorable effect of immunotherapy in these patients has been postulated to be due to an increase in neoantigens due to their higher somatic mutational load, also associated with an abundant infiltration of immune cells in tumor microenvironment (TME). While in patients with dMMR tumors checkpoint inhibitors allow achieving durable response with dramatic survival improvement, current results in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS or MSI-low)/proficient DNA mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors are disappointing. These tumors show low mutational load and absence of "immune-competent" TME, and are intrinsically resistant to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Modifying the interplay among cancer cells, TME and host immune system is the aim of multiple lines of research in order to enhance the immunogenicity of pMMR mCRC, and exploit immunotherapy also in this field. Here, we focus on the rationale behind ongoing clinical trials aiming at extending the efficacy of immunotherapy beyond the MSI-high/dMMR subgroup with particular regard to academic no-profit studies.

How we treat metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. About 20% of patients suffer from metastatic disease at diagnosis, while about one-third of patients treated with curative intent relapsed. In these patients, an accurate staging allows to plan a treatment strategy within a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve predefined goals. Patient's clinical features, tumour characteristics and molecular profile (RAS/BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI) status) should be considered during the treatment choice. Combination of chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) plus biological agents (antiepidermal growth factor receptor or antiangiogenic drugs) in addition to surgery, could give a chance of cure in resectable or potentially resectable tumours. However, in never resectable tumours, disease control and prolonging survival should be the goal to achieve simultaneously with control of symptoms. In addition to standard therapies, especially in case of unresectable oligometastatic disease, several local ablative treatment are available. In later lines, when improving quality of life become predominant, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil demonstrated survival benefit, while re-challenge therapies represent an option only in selected patients. In patients with BRAFV600E-mutant tumour or with MSI, new therapies showed survival gain and probably will be a new piece in the treatment algorithm.

Different Toxicity Profiles Predict Third Line Treatment Efficacy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

The nucleoside trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib significantly improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC). Both treatments are characterized by different treatment-related adverse events but detailed analyses of predictive side effects are rare. In this retrospective, observational, real-life study, clinical data on mCRC patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland were collected. The correlation between adverse events and response or survival rates were calculated performing Fisher’s exact test and log-rank test, respectively. Common adverse events of any grade included fatigue (52%), nausea/vertigo (34%), anemia (26%), and leukopenia (22%) in trifluridine/tipiracil patients and fatigue (42%), hand-foot-skin syndrome (36%) and hoarseness (34%) in patients upon regorafenib treatment. In trifluridine/tipiracil patients the prevalence of leukopenia (p = 0.044) and weight loss (p = 0.044) was prognostic, whereas leukopenia (p = 0.044) and neutropenia (p = 0.043) predicted PFS. The disease control rate was not significantly affected. In regorafenib-treated patients, the prevalence of nausea (p = 0.001) was prognostic, while oral mucositis predicted PFS (p = 0.032) as well as the DCR (p = 0.039). In conclusion, we underline the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in the real-life setting. We describe predictive adverse events like neutropenia/leukopenia, which might be used as surrogate marker in anticancer therapy beyond second line treatment.

Current Options for Third-line and Beyond Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Spanish TTD Group Expert Opinion

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health problem: it is the third most common cancer in men (746,000 new cases/year) and the second in women (614,000 new cases/year), representing the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. The survival of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has increased prominently in recent years, reaching a median of 25 to 30 months. A growing number of patients with mCRC are candidates to receive a treatment in third line or beyond, although the optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown. In this situation of refractoriness, there are several alternatives: (1) To administer sequentially the 2 oral drugs approved in this indication: trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, which have shown a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival with a different toxicity profile. (2) To administer cetuximab or panitumumab in treatment-naive patients with RAS wild type, which is increasingly rare because these drugs are usually indicated in first- or second-line. (3) To reuse drugs already administered that were discontinued owing to toxicity or progression (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, antiangiogenics, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor [if RAS wild-type]). High-quality evidence is limited, but this strategy is often used in routine clinical practice in the absence of alternative therapies especially in patients with good performance status. (4) To use specific treatments for very selected populations, such as trastuzumab/lapatinib in mCRC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, immunotherapy in microsatellite instability, intrahepatic therapies in limited disease or primarily located in the liver, although the main recommendation is to include patients in clinical trials.

Update on optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer from the AGITG expert meeting: ESMO congress 2019

Introduction: Outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer are improving, due to the tailoring of therapy enabled by better understanding of clinical behavior according to molecular subtype.Areas covered: A review of the literature and recent conference presentations was undertaken on the topic of systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This review summarizes expert discussion of the current evidence for therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on molecular subgrouping.Expert opinion: EGFR-targeted and VEGF-targeted antibodies are now routinely incorporated into treatment strategies for mCRC. EGFR-targeted antibodies are restricted to patients with extended RAS wild-type profiles, with evidence that they should be further restricted to patients with left-sided tumors. Clinically distinct treatment pathways based on tumor RAS, BRAF, HER2 and MMR status, are now clinically applicable. Evidence suggests therapy for additional subgroups will soon be defined; the most advanced being for patients with KRAS G12 C mutation and gene TRK fusion defects.