•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for managing metastatic colorectal cancer.•It covers clinical and pathological diagnosis, staging and risk assessment, treatment ...and follow-up.•Treatment algorithms for locoregional, advanced/metastatic and recurrent advanced colorectal cancer are provided.•All recommendations were compiled by a multidisciplinary group of experts.•Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the authors’ collective expert opinion.
Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab showed promising results in phase II trials in unsystematically selected RAS population. We evaluated FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab efficacy as first-line treatment in ...extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.
We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab, using data from clinical trials and real-life practice. Extended mutation analysis was performed when RAS/BRAF status was unavailable. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).
Seventy patients (61.4 % male, median age 58.7 years) were analyzed. Eighty percent had left-sided mCRC and 97.1 % had liver metastases. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 48.5 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 85.7 %, with 20 % complete response. Primary tumor location did not affect OS and PFS. BRAF wild-type patients (n = 65) had longer PFS (13.3 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.005) and OS (50.1 vs. 21.2 months; p = 0.007) than BRAF mutated patients (n = 5, including four BRAF
). Median OS was significantly longer in resected patients (n = 39, 55.1 vs. 30.7 months; p = 0.030). Main toxicities were diarrhea (31.4 %) and neutropenia (21.4 %).
FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab provides good PFS, high response rate and prolonged disease control in initially unresectable extended RAS wild-type mCRC. This combination is particularly interesting for selected patients with liver-limited disease eligible to secondary resection.
Background
Bevacizumab, a VEGF‐A inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy, has proven to increase progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival in multiple lines of therapy of metastatic ...colorectal cancer (mCRC). The angiogenic factor angiopoetin‐2 (Ang‐2) is associated with poor prognosis in many cancers, including mCRC. Preclinical models demonstrate improved activity when inhibiting both VEGF‐A and Ang‐2, suggesting that the dual VEGF‐A and Ang‐2 blocker vanucizumab (RO5520985 or RG‐7221) may improve clinical outcomes. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vanucizumab plus modified (m)FOLFOX‐6 (folinic acid (leucovorin), fluorouracil (5‐FU) and oxaliplatin) versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX‐6 for first‐line mCRC.
Patients and Methods
All patients received mFOLFOX‐6 and were randomized 1:1 to also receive vanucizumab 2,000 mg or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every other week. Oxaliplatin was given for eight cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator‐assessed PFS.
Results
One hundred eighty‐nine patients were randomized (vanucizumab, n = 94; bevacizumab, n = 95). The number of PFS events was comparable (vanucizumab, n = 39; bevacizumab, n = 43). The hazard ratio was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.64–1.58; p = .98) in a stratified analysis based on number of metastatic sites and region. Objective response rate was 52.1% and 57.9% in the vanucizumab and bevacizumab arm, respectively. Baseline plasma Ang‐2 levels were prognostic in both arms but not predictive for treatment effects on PFS of vanucizumab. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥3 was similar between treatment arms (83.9% vs. 82.1%); gastrointestinal perforations (10.8% vs. 8.4%) exceeded previously reported rates in this setting. Hypertension and peripheral edema were more frequent in the vanucizumab arm.
Conclusion
Vanucizumab/mFOLFOX‐6 did not improve PFS and was associated with increased rates of antiangiogenic toxicity compared with bevacizumab/mFOLFOX‐6. Our results suggest that Ang‐2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in first‐line mCRC.
Implications for Practice
This randomized phase II study demonstrates that additional angiopoietin‐2 (Ang‐2) inhibition does not result in superior benefit over anti–VEGF‐A blockade alone when each added to standard chemotherapy. Moreover, the performed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis revealed that vanucizumab was bioavailable and affected its intended target, thereby strongly suggesting that Ang‐2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in the clinical setting of treatment‐naïve metastatic colorectal cancer. As a result, the further clinical development of the dual VEGF‐A and Ang‐2 inhibitor vanucizumab was discontinued.
This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vanucizumab plus mFOLFOX‐6 versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX‐6 in the first‐line setting of metastatic colorectal cancer.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, despite recent improvements in cancer management. CRC, like many malignancies, is a ...heterogeneous disease, with subtypes characterized by genetic alterations. One common mutation in CRC is in the BRAF gene (most commonly V600E substitution). This occurs in ∼10% of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) and is a marker of poor prognosis.
Herein, we review the clinical and translational literature on the role of the BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of mCRC, its mechanisms as a prognostic marker, and its potential utility as a predictive marker of treatment response. We then summarize the current evidence-based recommendations for management of BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, with a focus on recent clinical research advances in this setting.
The current standard therapies for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC are chemotherapy with bevacizumab as well as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with a good performance status. Combination strategies involving mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade have shown promising results for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. The Binimetinib, Encorafenib, And Cetuximab cOmbiNed to treat BRAF-mutant ColoRectal Cancer (BEACON CRC) study represents the largest study in this population to date and has given strong clinical evidence to support BRAF and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition with the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab.
The treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC has evolved rapidly over the last several years. Recently, combination strategies involving MAPK pathway blockade have shown promising results in BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, and other potential targets continue to be explored. In addition, a greater understanding of the role of BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of CRC should also continue to fuel advances in the management of patients with mCRC harboring this genetic aberration.
•CRC remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, despite improvements in management.•Mutations in the BRAF gene are seen in 10% of patients with mCRC, particularly due to V600E substitution.•V600E substitution is a marker of poor prognosis and reduced response to treatment in patients with mCRC.•Combination treatment involving MAPK pathway blockade has shown promise for patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC.•Continued research is needed to further improve outcomes in these patients.
The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases ...(NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment.
A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR).
Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L.
LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.
•LM in CRC are associated with poorer OS and PFS versus NLM across treatment lines.•Prognostic impact of LM increases from first-line to third-line therapy settings.•The presence of LM is a poor prognostic factor particularly in third-line therapy.•Using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for mCRC is recommended.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents approximately 10% of all cancers and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths. Initial clinical presentation as metastatic CRC (mCRC) occurs in ...approximately 20% of patients. Moreover, up to 50% of patients with localized disease eventually develop metastases. Appropriate clinical management of these patients is still a challenging medical issue. Major efforts have been made to unveil the molecular landscape of mCRC. This has resulted in the identification of several druggable tumor molecular targets with the aim of developing personalized treatments for each patient. This review summarizes the improvements in the clinical management of patients with mCRC in the emerging era of precision medicine. In fact, molecular stratification, on which the current treatment algorithm for mCRC is based, although it does not completely represent the complexity of this disease, has been the first significant step toward clinically informative genetic profiling for implementing more effective therapeutic approaches. This has resulted in a clinically relevant increase in mCRC disease control and patient survival. The next steps in the clinical management of mCRC will be to integrate the comprehensive knowledge of tumor gene alterations, of tumor and microenvironment gene and protein expression profiling, of host immune competence as well as the application of the resulting dynamic changes to a precision medicine‐based continuum of care for each patient. This approach could result in the identification of individual prognostic and predictive parameters, which could help the clinician in choosing the most appropriate therapeutic program(s) throughout the entire disease journey for each patient with mCRC. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:000‐000.
PDF
