Phase III study with FOLFIRI + cetuximab versus FOLFIRI + cetuximab followed by cetuximab alone in RAS and BRAF WT mCRC

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study

PURPOSE

The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A.

RESULTS

Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%).

CONCLUSION

The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.

Post-Induction Management in Patients With Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Doublet Regimens: A Multicentre Study

Background

Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians’ attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR).

Results

At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9–35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3–17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4–14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1–20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0–11.2, 136 events), respectively (p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5–47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6–40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2–50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6–27.6, 99 events), respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44–0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38–0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts.

Conclusion

Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a “real-life” setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen.

Photodynamic Therapy and Hyperthermia in Combination Treatment-Neglected Forces in the Fight against Cancer

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in humans. Despite the progress in cancer treatment, and an increase in the effectiveness of diagnostic methods, cancer is still highly lethal and very difficult to treat in many cases. Combination therapy, in the context of cancer treatment, seems to be a promising option that may allow minimizing treatment side effects and may have a significant impact on the cure. It may also increase the effectiveness of anti-cancer therapies. Moreover, combination treatment can significantly increase delivery of drugs to cancerous tissues. Photodynamic therapy and hyperthermia seem to be ideal examples that prove the effectiveness of combination therapy. These two kinds of therapy can kill cancer cells through different mechanisms and activate various signaling pathways. Both PDT and hyperthermia play significant roles in the perfusion of a tumor and the network of blood vessels wrapped around it. The main goal of combination therapy is to combine separate mechanisms of action that will make cancer cells more sensitive to a given therapeutic agent. Such an approach in treatment may contribute toward increasing its effectiveness, optimizing the cancer treatment process in the future.

The Role of Wild-Type RAS in Oncogenic RAS Transformation

The RAS family of oncogenes (HRAS, NRAS, and KRAS) are among the most frequently mutated protein families in cancers. RAS-mutated tumors were originally thought to proliferate independently of upstream signaling inputs, but we now know that non-mutated wild-type (WT) RAS proteins play an important role in modulating downstream effector signaling and driving therapeutic resistance in RAS-mutated cancers. This modulation is complex as different WT RAS family members have opposing functions. The protein product of the WT RAS allele of the same isoform as mutated RAS is often tumor-suppressive and lost during tumor progression. In contrast, RTK-dependent activation of the WT RAS proteins from the two non-mutated WT RAS family members is tumor-promoting. Further, rebound activation of RTK–WT RAS signaling underlies therapeutic resistance to targeted therapeutics in RAS-mutated cancers. The contributions of WT RAS to proliferation and transformation in RAS-mutated cancer cells places renewed interest in upstream signaling molecules, including the phosphatase/adaptor SHP2 and the RasGEFs SOS1 and SOS2, as potential therapeutic targets in RAS-mutated cancers.