Weekly alternate intensive regimen FIrB/FOx in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: an update from clinical practice

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

Aim

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

Study design and methods

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1–2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

Results

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

Conclusion

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Concurrent RAS and RAS/BRAF V600E Variants in Colorectal Cancer: More Frequent Than Expected? A Case Report

The assessment of RAS and BRAF mutational status is one of the main steps in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Multiple mutations in the BRAF and RAS pathway are described as a rare event, with concurrent variants in KRAS and BRAF genes observed in approximately 0.05% of mCRC cases. Here, we report data from a case series affected by high-risk stage III and stage IV CRC and tested for RAS and BRAF mutation, treated at our Medical Oncology Unit. The analysis of KRAS, NRAS (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, 146), and BRAF (codon 600) hotspot variants was performed in 161 CRC tumors from August 2018 to September 2021 and revealed three (1.8%) patients showing mutations in both KRAS and BRAF (V600E), including two cases with earlier CRC and one with metastatic disease. We also identified one patient (0.6%) with a mutation in both KRAS and NRAS genes and another one (0.6%) with a double KRAS mutation. Notably, the latter was characterized by aggressive behavior and poor clinical outcome. The mutational status, pathological features, and clinical history of these five CRC cases are described. Overall, this study case series adds evidence to the limited available literature concerning both the epidemiological and clinical aspects of CRC cases characterized by the presence of concurrent RAS/BRAF variants. Future multicentric studies will be required to increase the sample size and provide additional value to results observed so far in order to improve clinical management of this subgroup of CRC patients.

Clinicians' Attitude to Doublet Plus Anti-EGFR Versus Triplet Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment in Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, "Real-Life", Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease.

RESULTS

A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041).

CONCLUSION

Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases.

Determining lines of therapy in patients with solid cancers: a proposed new systematic and comprehensive framework

The complexity of neoplasia and its treatment are a challenge to the formulation of general criteria that are applicable across solid cancers. Determining the number of prior lines of therapy (LoT) is critically important for optimising future treatment, conducting medication audits, and assessing eligibility for clinical trial enrolment. Currently, however, no accepted set of criteria or definitions exists to enumerate LoT. In this article, we seek to open a dialogue to address this challenge by proposing a systematic and comprehensive framework to determine LoT uniformly across solid malignancies. First, key terms, including LoT and 'clinical progression of disease' are defined. Next, we clarify which therapies should be assigned a LoT, and why. Finally, we propose reporting LoT in a novel and standardised format as LoT N (CLoT + PLoT), where CLoT is the number of systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT) administered with curative intent and/or in the early setting, PLoT is the number of SACT given with palliative intent and/or in the advanced setting, and N is the sum of CLoT and PLoT. As a next step, the cancer research community should develop and adopt standardised guidelines for enumerating LoT in a uniform manner.

What Is Known about Theragnostic Strategies in Colorectal Cancer

Despite the paradigmatic shift occurred in recent years for defined molecular subtypes in the metastatic setting treatment, colorectal cancer (CRC) still remains an incurable disease in most of the cases. Therefore, there is an urgent need for new tools and biomarkers for both early tumor diagnosis and to improve personalized treatment. Thus, liquid biopsy has emerged as a minimally invasive tool that is capable of detecting genomic alterations from primary or metastatic tumors, allowing the prognostic stratification of patients, the detection of the minimal residual disease after surgical or systemic treatments, the monitoring of therapeutic response, and the development of resistance, establishing an opportunity for early intervention before imaging detection or worsening of clinical symptoms. On the other hand, preclinical and clinical evidence demonstrated the role of gut microbiota dysbiosis in promoting inflammatory responses and cancer initiation. Altered gut microbiota is associated with resistance to chemo drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors, whereas the use of microbe-targeted therapies including antibiotics, pre-probiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation can restore response to anticancer drugs, promote immune response, and therefore support current treatment strategies in CRC. In this review, we aim to summarize preclinical and clinical evidence for the utilization of liquid biopsy and gut microbiota in CRC.

Multimodality Treatment in Metastatic Gastric Cancer: From Past to Next Future

Gastric cancer (GC) still remains an incurable disease in almost two-thirds of the cases. However, a deeper knowledge of its biology in the last few years has revealed potential biomarkers suitable for tailored treatment with targeted agents. This aspect, together with the improvement in early supportive care and a wiser use of the available cytotoxic drugs across multiple lines of treatment, has resulted in incremental and progressive survival benefits. Furthermore, slowly but surely, targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors are revising the therapeutic scenario even in metastatic GC and especially in particular subgroups. Moreover, important study results regarding the possible role of an integrated approach combining systemic, surgical, and locoregional treatment in carefully selected oligometastatic GC patients are awaited. This review summarizes the state-of-the-art and the major ongoing trials involving a multimodal treatment of metastatic GC.

Evaluation of Second-line Anti-VEGF after First-line Anti-EGFR Based Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Multicenter "SLAVE" Study

: Background: The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy as second-line treatment in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) based first-line treatment is still debated.

METHODS

This multicenter, real-world, retrospective study is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of second-line Bevacizumab- and Aflibercept-based treatments after an anti-EGFR based first-line regimen. Clinical outcomes measured were: objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) profiles.

RESULTS

From February 2011 to October 2019, 277 consecutive mCRC patients received Bevacizumab-based (228, 82.3%) or Aflibercept-based (49, 17.7%) regimen. No significant difference was found regarding ORR. The median follow-up was 27.7 months (95%CI: 24.7-34.4). Aflibercept-treated group had a significantly shorter PFS compared to Bevacizumab-treated group (5.6 vs. 7.1 months, respectively) (HR = 1.34 (95%CI: 0.95-1.89); p = 0.0932). The median OS of the Bevacizumab-treated group and Aflibercept-treated group was 16.2 (95%CI: 15.3-18.1) and 12.7 (95%CI: 8.8-17.5) months, respectively (HR= 1.31 (95%CI: 0.89-1.93) p = 0.16). After adjusting for the key covariates (age, gender, performance status, number of metastatic sites and primary tumor side) Bevacizumab-based regimens revealed to be significantly related with a prolonged PFS (HR = 1.44 (95%CI: 1.02-2.03); p = 0.0399) compared to Aflibercept-based regimens, but not with a prolonged OS (HR = 1.47 (95%CI: 0.99-2.17); p = 0.0503). The incidence of G3/G4 VEGF inhibitors class-specific AEs was 7.5% and 26.5% in the Bevacizumab-treated group and the Aflibercept-treated group, respectively (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis seems to reveal that Bevacizumab-based regimens have a slightly better PFS and class-specific AEs profile compared to Aflibercept-based regimen as second-line treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC patients previously treated with anti-EGFR based treatments. These results have to be taken with caution and no conclusive considerations are allowed.