Update on the management of elderly patients with colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common tumours worldwide, and 70% of CRC patients are over 65 years of age. However, the scientific evidence available for these patients is poor, as they are underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, a group of experts from the Oncogeriatrics Section of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours, (TTD) and the Multidisciplinary Spanish Group of Digestive Cancer (GEMCAD) have reviewed the scientific evidence available in older patients with CRC. This group of experts recommends a multidisciplinary approach and geriatric assessment (GA) before making a therapeutic decision because GA predicts the risk of toxicity and survival and helps to individualize treatment. In addition, elderly patients with localized CRC should undergo standard cancer resection, preferably laparoscopically. The indication for adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) should be considered based on the potential benefit, the risk of recurrence, the life expectancy and patient comorbidities. When the disease is metastatic, the possibility of radical treatment with surgery, radiofrequency (RF) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) should be considered. The efficacy of palliative CT is similar to that seen in younger patients, but elderly patients are at increased risk of toxicity. Clinical trials should be conducted with the elderly population and include GAs and specific treatment plans.

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain. Metastatic disease is present in 15-30% of patients at diagnosis and up to 20-50% of those with initially localized disease eventually develop metastases. Recent scientific knowledge acknowledges that this is a clinically and biologically heterogeneous disease. As treatment options increase, prognosis for individuals with metastatic disease has steadily improved over recent decades. Disease management should be discussed among experienced, multidisciplinary teams to select the most appropriate systemic treatment (chemotherapy and targeted agents) and to integrate surgical or ablative procedures, when indicated. Clinical presentation, tumor sidedness, molecular profile, disease extension, comorbidities, and patient preferences are key factors when designing a customized treatment plan. These guidelines seek to provide succinct recommendations for managing metastatic CRC.

Management of metastatic colorectal cancer in patients ≥70 years - a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Age-standardized mortality rates for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are highest among elderly patients. In current clinical guidelines, treatment recommendations for this patient population are based on a limited number of clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this monocentric, retrospective analysis we characterized patients aged ≥70 years undergoing systemic therapy for mCRC and overall survival (OS) was investigated.

RESULTS

We included 117 unselected, consecutive mCRC patients aged ≥70 years undergoing systemic therapy for mCRC between February 2009 and July 2022. Median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI: 21.8-29.4). The median age was 78 years (range: 70-90) and 21%, 48%, 26% and 5% had an ECOG performance score of 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median number of systemic therapy lines was 2 (range: 1-5). The choice of first-line chemotherapy backbone (doublet/triplet versus mono) did not impact OS (HR: 0.83, p=0.50) or the probability of receiving subsequent therapy (p=0.697). Metastasectomy and/or local ablative treatment in the liver, lung, peritoneum and/or other organs were applied in 26 patients (22%) with curative intent. First-line anti-EGFR-based therapy showed a trend towards longer OS compared to anti-VEGF-based therapy or chemotherapy alone in left-sided mCRC (anti-EGFR: 39.3 months versus anti-VEGF: 27.3 months versus chemotherapy alone: 13.8 months, p=0.105). In multivariable analysis, metastasectomy and/or local ablative treatment with curative intent (yes versus no, HR: 0.22, p<0.001), the ECOG performance score (2 versus 0, HR: 3.07, p=0.007; 3 versus 0, HR: 3.66, p=0.053) and the presence of liver metastases (yes versus no, HR: 1.79, p=0.049) were independently associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings corroborate front-line monochemotherapy in combination with targeted therapy as the treatment of choice for elderly mCRC patients with palliative treatment intent. Metastasectomy and/or local ablative treatment with curative intent are feasible and may improve OS in selected elderly mCRC patients.

Guidance for Treating the Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The need for evidence-based data in the rapidly growing group of older patients is vast and more elderly-specific studies are desperately needed, for which there is clear demand from both patients and providers. Notably, many of the studies discussed in this review included unplanned subset analyses based on age and/or were not originally stratified by age; therefore, these data, particularly overall survival data, need to be interpreted with some caution as they may not be statistically valid based on the initial trial design and statistical plan. As we await data from ongoing elderly-specific trials, our recommendation for managing older patients with CRC should include geriatric screening tools (e.g., CSGA, VES-13, G8, CARG, CRASH) to help guide treatment adjustments for improved tolerability without sacrificing efficacy. For patients with a positive screen for significant geriatric concerns, a full geriatric assessment is recommended to guide treatment approach and supportive care. Prior data support the use of all approved medications for CRC in older adults who are fit; however, treatment breaks and dose attenuation with potential escalation are reasonable options for these patients. Ultimately, management decisions in the care of older adults with mCRC must be made through shared decision-making with the patient with consideration for the patient's functional status, comorbidities, goals of care, social support, as well as potential toxicities and possible effect on QoL.

The oncological multidimensional prognostic index is a promising decision-making tool: A real-world analysis in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of colorectal cancers occur in older patients. International societies recommend geriatric tools to optimise treatment of older patients. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional assessment used to classify patients as fit, vulnerable, or frail. The CGA-based oncological multidimensional prognostic index (onco-MPI) also classifies patients as high-, intermediate-, or low-risk based on tumour characteristics. We investigated the role of CGA and onco-MPI in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Data for consecutive mCRC patients aged ≥70 years were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database from 2010 to 2020. We analyzed patients' and tumours' characteristics, and the CGA domains. Onco-MPI was calculated by a validated algorithm derived from CGA domains. Pearson's test was used to verify whether onco-MPI scores and chemotherapy administration were correlated.

RESULTS

The study included 488 mCRC patients with a mean age of 76.1 years. According to CGA, 52% of patients were fit, 28% vulnerable, and 20% frail. According to onco-MPI, 9% were low, 54% intermediate, and 37% high-risk. The median OS was 22.7 months. The following factors improved OS: 0-1 ECOG PS, low onco-MPI, fit based on CGA, chemotherapy administration, and doublet regimen. Chemotherapy administration significantly correlated with onco-MPI scores, leading to a survival gain regardless of the risk subgroups. First-line regimen had no impact on survival across the CGA and onco-MPI categories.

CONCLUSION

CGA and onco-MPI scores confirmed their prognostic impact in older mCRC patients and may aid in decision-making and subgroup stratification in dedicated trials.

An Update on the Role of Anti-EGFR in the Treatment of Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Although colorectal cancer is increasingly being diagnosed in older patients, their number is largely underrepresented in phase II or III clinical trials. Consequently, guidelines and the SIOG recommendations are not sufficiently clear regarding the treatment of these patients, particularly when chemotherapy is combined with monoclonal antibodies (bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab). Targeted therapy based on the use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) is conditioned by the potential for increased toxicity, making it more difficult to treat an older, rat sarcoma virus (RAS) and B rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) wild-type patient. In light of a more detailed characterization of the older population, modernly differentiable between fit, vulnerable, or frail patients on the basis of the comprehensive geriatric assessment, and of the analysis of more recent studies, this review fully collects data from the literature, differentiating the results on functional status patients.

Assessing Oncologists' Adoption of Biomarker Testing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Despite national guideline recommendations for universal biomarker testing (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and mismatch repair and microsatellite instability [MMR/MSI]) in all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), little is known regarding adherence to these recommendations in routine practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with mCRC diagnosed between January 1, 2013, and December 27, 2018, from a de-identified electronic health record-derived database. We analyzed disparities in KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and MMR/MSI testing by race, age, sex, and insurance status using χ2 tests and t tests. We evaluated changes in biomarker testing over time with attention to changes around dates of landmark publications and guideline updates using χ2 tests and Cochran-Armitage tests.

RESULTS

A total of 20 333 patients were identified of which 66.6% had test results for any biomarker. Rates of test results for all 4 biomarkers statistically significantly increased over time (P < .001). However, as of June 30, 2018, the rate of test results was only 46% for NRAS, 56% for KRAS, and 46% for BRAF. As of December 31, 2017, the rate of MMR/MSI testing was 59%. Higher documented testing rates were associated with younger age, lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and commercial insurance. There were no clinically meaningful and/or statistically significant differences in documented testing rates by tumor sidedness, race, sex, or initial stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased rates of documented testing for NRAS, BRAF, and MMR/MSI in mCRC was seen between 2013 and 2018 reflecting adoption of guideline recommendations. However, the rate of documented testing remains lower than expected and warrants additional research to understand the extent to which this may represent a clinical practice quality concern.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration ID (clinicaltrials.gov) NCT01249638.

Study protocol of the FIRE-8 (AIO-KRK/YMO-0519) trial: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II trial investigating the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Initial systemic therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually based on two- or three-drug chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine), oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, combined with either anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) or, for RAS wild-type (WT) tumors, anti-EGFR antibodies (panitumumab or cetuximab). Recommendations for patients who are not eligible for intensive combination therapies are limited and include fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab or single agent anti-EGFR antibody treatment. The use of a monochemotherapy concept of trifluridine/ tipiracil in combination with monoclonal antibodies is not approved for first-line therapy, yet. Results from the phase II TASCO trial evaluating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus bevacicumab in first-line treatment of mCRC patients and from the phase I/II APOLLON trial investigating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus panitumumab in pre-treated mCRC patients suggest favourable activity and tolerability of these new therapeutic approaches.

METHODS

FIRE-8 ( NCT05007132 ) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study which aims to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA), orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, q28 days) plus either the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (6 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm A] or (as control arm) the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm B] in RAS WT mCRC patients. The primary objective is to demonstrate an improved objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 from 30% (control arm) to 55% with panitumumab. With a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 138 evaluable patients are needed. Given an estimated drop-out rate of 10%, 153 patients will be enrolled.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC patients. The administration of anti-EGFR antibodies rather than anti-VEGF antibodies in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil may result in an increased initial efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2019-004223-20 . Registered October 22, 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05007132 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Treatments after second progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies

BACKGROUND

The availability of new drugs in the chemo-refractory setting opened the way to the concepts of treatment sequencing in mCRC. However, the impact of later line options in the therapeutic route of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and the attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy are not well established.

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis of treatments administered after the 2nd disease progression in 1187 mCRC patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies, where upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev was compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI/bev. Per each line, we assessed the attrition rate, treatment choices and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

625 (53%), 326 (27%) and 136 (11%) patients received a systemic treatment after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th disease progression, respectively. PFS and objective response rate decreased along each line. RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received more likely a 3rd line (75%) compared with RAS (66%, p = 0.005) and BRAF (66%, p = 0.11) mutants. In 3rd line, 67% of RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received anti-EGFRs, achieving longer PFS with respect to other therapies (6.4 vs 3.9 months, p = 0.02). A trend towards longer 3rd line OS was observed in TRIBE patients (9.9 vs 7.2 months, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A relevant attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy is evident, and more pronounced in RAS and BRAF mutated patients, thus highlighting the relevance of the choice of the upfront treatment. The efficacy of anti-EGFR agents among RAS/BRAF wild-type patients unexposed to anti-EGFRs is higher than other options. The reintroduction of chemotherapy remains frequent in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials. gov Identifiers NCT00719797, NCT02339116.

Resource Oriented Decision Making for Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) in a Lower-Middle Income Country: Egyptian Foundation of Medical Sciences (EFMS) Consensus Recommendations 2020

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide and the second cause of cancer related mortality. Treatment options for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) expanded during the last two decades, with introduction of new chemotherapeutic and targeted agents. Egypt is a lower middle-income country; Egyptian health care system is fragmented with wide diversity in drug availability and reimbursement policies across different health care providing facilities. We report the results of consensus recommendations for treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer developed by Egyptian Foundation of Medical Sciences (EFMS), aiming to harmonize clinical practice through structured expert consensus-based recommendations consistent with the national status. EFMS recommendations could be utilized in other countries with similar economic status.

METHODS

EFMS recommendations were developed using a modified Delphi process, with three rounds of voting till the final recommendations were approved. A non-systematic review of literature was conducted before generating the provisional statements. Content experts were asked to vote on some recommendations in two different resource groups (restricted resources and non-restricted resources). External review board of experts from a low income and lower-middle countries voted on the applicability of EFMS recommendations in their countries.

RESULTS

The current recommendations highlighted the discrepancy in health care between restricted and non-restricted resources with expected survival loss and quality of life deterioration. Access to targeted agents in first line is very limited in governmental institutions, and no access to agents approved for third line in patients who failed oxaliplatin and irinotecan containing regimens for patients treated in restricted resource settings.

CONCLUSION

Management of mCRC in developing countries is a challenge. The currently available resource-stratified guidelines developed by international cancer societies represent a valuable decision-making tool, adaptation to national status in each country based on healthcare system status is required.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

Impact of age and gender on the efficacy and safety of upfront therapy with panitumumab plus FOLFOX followed by panitumumab-based maintenance: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Valentino study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients fit enough to receive combination chemotherapy plus biological agents is an issue of growing interest. Also, gender-specific differential toxicity and efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based upfront treatments need to be explored.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Valentino was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, investigating two panitumumab-based maintenance strategies following first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. We carried out a subgroup analysis, aimed at assessing the differences in efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) according to age (<70 versus ≥70 years) and gender (male versus female). Efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR); safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

No significant differences in terms of PFS, OS and ORR were observed between patients aged <70 or ≥70 years and the effect of the maintenance treatment arm on survival outcomes was similar in the two subgroups. The safety profile of both induction and maintenance treatment and the impact on QoL were similar in elderly and younger patients. No significant differences in PFS, OS, ORR or clinical benefit rate were observed according to gender. A significantly higher rate of overall grade 3/4 AEs (P = 0.008) and of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.017), any grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and any grade conjunctivitis (P = 0.033) was reported in female as compared to male patients. Conversely, we reported a significantly higher incidence of any grade skin rash (P = 0.0007) and hypomagnesemia (P = 0.029) in male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The upfront choice of an anti-EGFR-based doublet chemotherapy followed by a maintenance strategy represents a valuable option in RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of gender and age, though a careful evaluation of patients to maximize the risk/benefit ratio is warranted.

MONARCC: a randomised phase II study of panitumumab monotherapy and panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil as first-line therapy for RAS and BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer: a study by the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG)

Background

Doublet chemotherapy in combination with a biologic agent has been a standard of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for over a decade. The evidence for a “lighter” treatment approach is limited to mono-chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the RAS unselected population. Anti-EGFR antibodies have activity as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer; however their role in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy or when given alone has not been well studied. MONARCC aims to investigate this approach in an elderly population.

Methods/design

MONARCC is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative randomised phase II trial. Eligible patients aged ≥70 with unresectable metastatic, untreated, RAS/BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer will be randomised 1:1 to receive panitumumab alone or panitumumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil. RAS and BRAF analyses will be performed in local laboratories. Comprehensive Health Assessment and Limited Health Assessments will be performed at baseline and at 16 weeks, respectively, to assess frailty. The Patient Symptom Questionnaire and Overall Treatment Utility are to be undertaken at different timepoints to assess the impact of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life. Treatment will be delivered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity (as determined by treating clinician or patient), delay of treatment of more than 6 weeks, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point is 6-month progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary end points include overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective tumour response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1 and safety (adverse events). Tertiary and correlative endpoints include the feasibility and utility of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, quality of life and biological substudies.

Discussion

MONARCC investigates the activity and tolerability of first-line panitumumab-based treatments with a view to expand on current treatment options while maximising progression-free and overall survival and quality of life in molecularly selected elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000233224, prospectively registered 14 February 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08644-4.

Management of Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma in Older Adults: Balancing Risks and Benefits of Novel Therapies

The prevalence of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) will continue to increase with our aging population. Treatment of mCRC has changed significantly in the last few decades as we have learned how to personalize the treatment of mCRC to the biology of the tumor, utilizing new treatment approaches. With an ever-changing treatment paradigm, managing the population of older adults becomes paramount. This review highlights the pivotal clinical trials that defined the use of systemic therapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies for mCRC, and how those are applied to the older patient population. In addition, we outline the tools for an in-depth assessment of an older adult in regards to treatment planning and management of therapy-related toxicities. A comprehensive geriatric assessment can assist in the selection of treatment for an older adult with mCRC. While frail older patients can frequently only tolerate single agents or modified regimens, fit older adults remain candidates for a wider range of treatment options. However, since all of these treatments are associated with possible toxicities, each patient's treatment must be personalized to the patient's goals and wishes through a shared decision-making process.

Targeted agents in older patients with gastrointestinal cancers - An overview

Targeted agents have been increasingly used in different malignancies and are associated with improved survival outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. Their use in the treatment of older patients is appealing given their favorable toxicity profile. In the last years, this subgroup of patients has been attracting increased interest given their representativeness and specific clinical needs. Nonetheless, the lack of data on efficacy and safety of standard treatments in older patients hinders proper evidence-based decision-making, leaving most therapeutic recommendations to be extrapolated from registration trials with low representation of older and frail patients. However, even if most decisions regarding the use of targeted agents in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer remain guided by subanalyses of large trials, data from recent older adult-specific trials are beginning to emerge, particularly in colorectal cancer. This review aims to summarize the existing evidence on treatment of older patients with gastrointestinal carcinomas (colon and rectum, stomach, esophagus, liver, and pancreas) with targeted agents (cetuximab, panitumumab, bevacizumab, ramucirumab, aflibercept, regorafenib, encorafenib, trastuzumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, erlotinib, olaparib), and place the evidence in a geriatric oncology perspective.

Personalizing First-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Is There a Role for Initial Low-Intensity Therapy in 2021 and Beyond? A Perspective From Members of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group

Palliative chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for the majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with the aim of increasing length and quality of life. Although guidelines outline the available treatment options in the first line, they provide limited guidance on choice and intensity of the chemotherapy backbone. Data from the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies confirm a survival benefit with triplet FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab, and this is a preferred option for younger patients with good performance status able to tolerate it. However, the relative benefit of a fluoropyrimidine doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan over single-agent fluoropyrimidine with or without a biologic is less certain; the available data demonstrate that single-agent fluoropyrimidine plus a biologic with planned sequencing of subsequent agents can produce similar overall survival outcomes with reduced toxicity. Our analysis of local real-world registry data suggests that this is an underutilized approach, particularly in younger and fitter patients. Established prognostic factors, including patient age, performance status, tumor sidedness, and biomarkers such as RAS/BRAF, are key in treatment selection; patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type disease or patients with low tumor bulk may be ideal for a less intensive regimen. Further studies are required to confirm the value of less-intensive regimens in the modern era, where the incorporation of biologic therapies has become routine and where non-chemotherapy options are emerging as viable options for molecularly defined patient subsets.

Management of colorectal cancer in the era of COVID-19: Challenges and suggestions

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had a huge impact on all sectors around the world. In particular, the healthcare system has been subject to an enormous pressure that has surpassed its ability in many instances. Additionally, the pandemic has called for a review of our daily medical practices, including our approach to colorectal cancer management where treatment puts patients at high risk of virus exposure. Given their higher median age, patients are at an increased risk for severe symptoms and complications in cases of infection, especially in the setting of immunosuppression. Therefore, a review of the routine colorectal cancer practices is needed to minimize risk of exposure. Oncologists should weigh risk of exposure versus the patient's oncologic benefits when approaching management. In addition, treatment protocols should be modified to minimize hospital visits and admissions while maintaining the same treatment efficacy. In this review, we will focus on challenges that colorectal cancer patients face during the pandemic, while highlighting the priority in each case. We will also discuss the evidence for potential modifications to existing treatment plans that could reduce infectious exposure without compromising care. Finally, we will discuss the impact of the socio-economic difficulties faced by Lebanese patients due to a poor economy toppled by an unexpected pandemic.

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.

Chemotherapy and Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the main causes of cancer death in the elderly. The older patients constitute a heterogeneous group in terms of functional status, comorbidities, and aging-related conditions. Therefore, therapeutic decisions need to be individualized. Additionally, a higher toxicity risk comes from the fact that pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs as well as the tissue tolerance can be altered with aging. Although the chemotherapy efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is similar for older and young patients, more toxicity is presented in the elderly. While the mono-chemotherapy provides the same benefit for young and older patients, doublets front-line chemotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) in the elderly. Furthermore, the benefit of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in older patients has been shown in several clinical trials, while the clinical data for the benefit of anti-epidermal growth factor antibodies are scarcer. Immunocheckpoint inhibitors could be an appropriate option for patients with microsatellite instability (MSI) tumors. A prior geriatric assessment is required before deciding the type of treatment in order to offer the best therapeutic option.

Outcomes following potentially curative therapies for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Older age represents a major risk factor for developing colorectal cancer and the disease disproportionately affects patients older than 60 years of age. However, knowledge regarding the optimal management of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains limited. The challenge of treating older patients arises in tailoring treatments to a heterogeneous cohort whilst adjusting for individuals with a wide variation of physiological reserve, a reduced tolerance to treatment side-effects and morbidity, and often different priorities as compared with younger patients. Data from the published literature supports the premise that older age alone is not an acceptable determinant of treatment options. In particular, patients aged 65-70 years with mCRC ought to be considered similarly to younger patients and patients aged 70-74 also stand to benefit from both hepatic resection and systemic therapy notwithstanding the higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Patients aged 75-79, and with sufficient physiological reserve ought to be considered for curative treatment options which are proportional to the extent of metastatic disease. Meanwhile, in patients aged ≥80 years, life-extending or life-enhancing benefit ought to be demonstrable prior to embarking upon major surgery as a curative treatment option. Older patients who meet the physiological eligibility criteria to enter clinical trials of systemic chemotherapy appear to gain similar benefit as younger patients and should not be excluded on the basis of age alone. Clinical trials that are specifically designed for older patients are feasible and could yield valuable information to guide clinical practice.

[New therapies in oncogeriatrics]

Cancer management is changing rapidly. Changes in practices are not all transferable to the elderly population, which is heterogeneous. The description of the intrinsic toxicity of anti-cancer treatments is insufficient in the elderly. Recent studies dedicated to the elderly incorporate composite evaluation criteria combining efficacy and toxicity with a broad definition including, among other things, loss of functional autonomy. These new data acquired, as well as new organisations integrating the new profession of advanced practice nurse in oncogeriatrics will enable us to better respond to the challenge of caring for elderly patients in the future.