Capecitabine and irinotecan with bevacizumab 2-weekly for metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II AVAXIRI study

Oncological Treatment-Related Fatigue in Oncogeriatrics: A Scoping Review

Fatigue is a highly prevalent symptom in both cancer patients and the older population, and it contributes to quality-of-life impairment. Cancer treatment-related fatigue should thus be included in the risk/benefit assessment when introducing any treatment, but tools are lacking to a priori estimate such risk. This scoping review was designed to report the current evidence regarding the frequency of fatigue for the different treatment regimens proposed for the main cancer indications, with a specific focus on age-specific data, for the following tumors: breast, ovary, prostate, urothelium, colon, lung and lymphoma. Fatigue was most frequently reported using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) versions 3 to 5. A total of 324 regimens were analyzed; data on fatigue were available for 217 (67%) of them, and data specific to older patients were available for 35 (11%) of them; recent pivotal trials have generally reported more fatigue grades than older studies, illustrating increasing concern over time. This scoping review presents an easy-to-understand summary that is expected to provide helpful information for shared decisions with patients regarding the anticipation and prevention of fatigue during each cancer treatment.

Upfront primary tumour resection and survival in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer according to primary tumour location and RAS status: Pooled analysis of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD)

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective studies and meta-analyses suggest that upfront primary tumour resection (UPTR) confers a survival benefit in patients with asymptomatic unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) undergoing chemotherapy, however a consensus of its role in routine clinical practice in the current era of targeted therapies is lacking. This retrospective study aimed to analyse the survival benefit of UPTR in terms of tumour location and mutational status, in patients with synchronous mCRC receiving chemotherapy and targeted therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Survival was analysed in a pooled cohort of synchronous mCRC patients treated with a first-line anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR inhibitor in seven trials of the Spanish TTD group, according to UPTR, tumour-sidedness and mutational profiling.

RESULTS

Of 1334 eligible patients, 642 (48%) had undergone UPTR. UPTR was associated with significantly longer overall survival (OS; 25.0 vs 20.3 months; HR 1.30, 95%CI 1.15-1.48; p < 0.0001). UPTR was associated with significant OS benefit in both left-sided (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.13-1.69; p = 0.002) and right-sided (HR 1.39, 95%CI 1.00-1.94; p = 0.049) tumours, RASwt (HR 1.29, 95%CI 1.05-1.60; p = 0.016) and BRAFwt (HR 1.49, 95%CI 1.21-1.84; p = 0.0002) tumours, and treatment with anti-EGFRs (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.13-1.92; p = 0.004) and anti-VEGFs (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.44; p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis identified number of metastatic sites, RAS status, primary tumour location and UPTR as independent prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSION

Considering the selection bias inherent to this study, our results support UPTR before first-line anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF targeted therapy in right and left-sided asymptomatic unresectable synchronous mCRC patients. RAS/BRAF mutational status may also influence UPTR function.

Performance of capecitabine in novel combination therapies in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers throughout the world, and no definitive cure has ever been found. Perhaps a new insight into the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs could help better treat patients. Targeted therapies have significantly improved the median overall survival of colorectal cancer patients. One of the standard chemotherapy regimens used for colorectal cancer is capecitabine, which is important in monotherapy and combination therapies. Capecitabine, with other chemotherapeutic agents (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, perifosine, 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin, aspirin, celecoxib, statins, quinacrine, inositol hexaphosphate and inositol, cystine/theanine, curcumin, and isorhamnetin), and biological ones (antibodies) plays an important role in the inhibition of some signaling pathways, increasing survival, reducing tumor growth and side effects of capecitabine. However, some drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, are negatively related to capecitabine; therefore, the purpose of this work is to review and discuss the performance of capecitabine combination therapies in colorectal cancer.

Oral drugs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common forms of cancer, with an estimated 1.36 million new cases and almost 700,000 deaths annually. Approximately 21% of patients with CRC have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective of this article is to review the literature on the efficacy and safety of oral drugs available for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several such drugs have been developed, and fluoropyrimidines are the backbone of chemotherapy in this indication. They exert their antitumour activity by disrupting the synthesis and function of DNA and RNA. Oral fluoropyrimidines include prodrugs capecitabine, tegafur, eniluracil/5-fluorouracil, tegafur/uracil, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI). Oral drugs offer several advantages over injectable formulations, including convenience, flexibility, avoidance of injection-related adverse events (AEs) and, in some circumstances, lower costs. However, oral drugs may not be suitable for patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or malabsorption, they may result in reduced treatment adherence and should not be co-administered with drugs that interfere with absorption or hepatic metabolism. Oral fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine, as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan or bevacizumab, are as effective as intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in first-line treatment of mCRC. Other oral fluoropyrimidines, such as FTD/TPI, are effective in patients with mCRC who are refractory, intolerant or ineligible for 5-FU. In addition, oral fluoropyrimidines are used in adjuvant treatment of mCRC. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor used in patients in whom several previous lines of therapy have failed. Frequent AEs associated with oral drugs used in the treatment of CRC include hand-foot syndrome and gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities.

First-Line Biological Agents Plus Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologicals, in combination with chemotherapy, are recommended as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, evidence guiding the appropriate management of older patients with mCRC is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes in older versus younger patients with mCRC who received first-line biological therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis used pooled data from five trials undertaken by the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours. All were studies of adults with advanced CRC who received first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, cetuximab or panitumumab, stratified by age (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years). Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

In total, 999 patients from five studies were included in the analysis: 480 (48%) were aged ≥ 65 years, and 519 (52%) were aged < 65 years. Median PFS did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years (9.9 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.17). Median OS was significantly shorter in older than in younger patients (21.3 vs. 25.0 months; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41). There was no significant difference between older and younger patients in ORR (59 vs. 62%). Patients aged ≥ 65 years experienced significantly more treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (61.67%) than did patients aged < 65 years (45.86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Biologicals plus chemotherapy is an effective first-line treatment option for selected patients aged ≥ 65 years with mCRC and has a manageable safety profile and efficacy comparable to that observed in younger patients.

TRIM Proteins in Colorectal Cancer: TRIM8 as a Promising Therapeutic Target in Chemo Resistance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most widespread forms of cancer in the population and, as all malignant tumors, often develops resistance to chemotherapies with consequent tumor growth and spreading leading to the patient’s premature death. For this reason, a great challenge is to identify new therapeutic targets, able to restore the drugs sensitivity of cancer cells. In this review, we discuss the role of TRIpartite Motifs (TRIM) proteins in cancers and in CRC chemoresistance, focusing on the tumor-suppressor role of TRIM8 protein in the reactivation of the CRC cells sensitivity to drugs currently used in the clinical practice. Since the restoration of TRIM8 protein levels in CRC cells recovers chemotherapy response, it may represent a new promising therapeutic target in the treatment of CRC.

Drug resistance and new therapies in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is often diagnosed at an advanced stage when tumor cell dissemination has taken place. Chemo- and targeted therapies provide only a limited increase of overall survival for these patients. The major reason for clinical outcome finds its origin in therapy resistance. Escape mechanisms to both chemo- and targeted therapy remain the main culprits. Here, we evaluate major resistant mechanisms and elaborate on potential new therapies. Amongst promising therapies is α-amanitin antibody-drug conjugate targeting hemizygous p53 loss. It becomes clear that a dynamic interaction with the tumor microenvironment exists and that this dictates therapeutic outcome. In addition, CRC displays a limited response to checkpoint inhibitors, as only a minority of patients with microsatellite instable high tumors is susceptible. In this review, we highlight new developments with clinical potentials to augment responses to checkpoint inhibitors.

Examination of multiple UGT1A and DPYD polymorphisms has limited ability to predict the toxicity and efficacy of metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan-based chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis

Background

To evaluate a new UGT1A and DPYD polymorphism panel to better predict irinotecan-induced toxicity and the clinical response in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

The genotypes of UGT1A (UGT1A1*6, UGT1A1*27, UGT1A1*28, UGT1A7*2, UGT1A7*3, UGT1A7*4 and UGT1A9*22) and DPYD (DPYD*5, DPYD c.1896 T > C, and DPYD*2A) were examined by direct sequencing in 661 mCRC patients receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The influences of UGT1A and DPYD polymorphisms on severe irinotecan-induced toxicities and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results

In the cohort studied here, the incidence of UGT1A1*6, UGT1A1*28, UGT1A7*2, UGT1A7*3, UGT1A9*22, DPYD*5, and DPYD c.1896 T > C variants were 34.8%, 24.2%, 34.3%, 39.4%, 81.8%, 48.4% and 20.4%, respectively. UGT1A1*27 and DPYD*2A had low frequencies and UGT1A7*4 was not found. A total of 59 patients (8.9%) suffered severe diarrhea and 136 patients (20.6%) suffered severe neutropenia. UGT1A1*28 heterozygotes (OR = 2.263, 95%CI 1.395–3.670), UGT1A1*28 homozygotes (OR = 5.910, 95%CI 1.138–30.672) and UGT1A1*6 homozygotes (OR = 4.737, 95%CI 1.946–11.533) were independent risk factors for severe neutropenia. UGT1A polymorphisms were not found to relate to severe diarrhea. DPYD*5 was determined to be an independent risk factor for severe diarrhea (OR = 2.143, 95%CI 1.136–4.041). Neither DPYD*5 nor DPYD c.1896 T > C was found to relate to severe neutropenia. In the first-line irinotecan-based treatment, UGT1A1*28 and DPYD*5 contributed to higher response rates (P = 0.043 and P = 0.019, respectively), while DPYD*5 was found to associate with better progression-free survival (P = 0.015). UGT1A1*27 contributed to worse overall survival (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Results still showed UGT1A1*6 and UGT1A1*28 to be partially associated with irinotecan-induced toxicity and clinical response. An examination of more UGT1A loci, except for UGT1A1*6 and UGT1A1*28, was not helpful to improve the predictive value of irinotecan-based toxicity and efficacy. An examination of DPYD*5 assisted in the prediction of severe diarrhea.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3406-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bevacizumab maintenance treatment for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM

to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the maintenance treatment of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Literature retrieval was conducted by searching Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE (1994-August 2016), Chinese Biomedical database (1978-August 2016) and CNKI (1994-August 2016). The quality of included articles was assessed based on the approach commended by the International Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled clinical trials were included, but concealed allocation was not mentioned in all of them. Although loss to follow-up was reported and intention-to-treat analysis was conducted in all the included articles, blinding method was covered only in one paper. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab was associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; HR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.64-0.90) and median overall survival (OS; HR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.74-0.89). After six cycles of XELOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and fluorouracil) + bevacizumab, the patients received maintenance therapy comprising either XELOX + bevacizumab or capecitabine + bevacizumab (PFS: HR = 1.68, 95%CI: 1.21-2.35; OS: HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.91-2.08). In patients who had disease progression after first-line chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, bevacizumab combined with second-line maintenance chemotherapy provided survival advantage (PFS: HR = 0.76, 95%CI: 0.69-0.83; OS: HR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.72-0.95). chemotherapy plus bevacizumab increased the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities (RR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.11-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy can improve the PFS and OS in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, but increases the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities.

Benefit of Bevacizumab-Based Frontline Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): a Turkish Oncology Group Study

BACKGROUND

Several chemotherapy regimens using bevacizumab have been developed. Our goal was to investigate regimens that have demonstrated significant clinical activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six hundred and sixty six patients with mCRC who received first-line chemotherapy combination with bevacizumab were studied. Fluoropyrimidine (F) plus irinotecan (I)-based (FI-bev), F plus oxaliplatin (O)-based (FO-bev), and F-based (F-bev) treatment regimens were compared with respect to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The median PFS of FI-bev (n = 414) was 10.9 months (95 % CI 10-11.8), of FO-bev (n = 211) was 9.4 months (95 % CI 8.3-10.4), and of F-bev (n = 41) was 9.5 months (95 % CI 5.9-13.1) (p = 0.089). The median OS of FI-bev was 26.3 months (95 % CI 21.7-30.9), of FO-bev was 27 months (95 % CI 24.3-29.7), and of F-bev was 23.3 months (95 % CI 12.7-33.9) (p = 0.102). In KRAS wild-type patients, the median PFS of FI-bev group was significantly longer than FO-bev group (10.5 vs. 9.1 months, p = 0.006). The FI-bev group had better OS than FO-bev group with borderline significance (p = 0.058). The FI-bev group had significantly longer OS than F-bev group. Patients who underwent metastasectomy or those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) ≤1 had longer PFS and OS independent of the type of chemotherapy regimen.

CONCLUSION

FI-bev may be the preferred frontline regimen for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. Metastasectomy and performance score were the strongest positive predictors of OS and PFS regardless of backbone chemotherapy regimen.