Primary tumor sidedness has an impact on prognosis and treatment outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from two randomized first-line panitumumab studies

Should anti-EGFR mAbs be discontinued for conversion surgery in untreated right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that left-sided tumors have better prognoses than right-sided tumors in RAS wild-type mCRC (metastatic colorectal cancer) patients, while anti-EGFR mAbs appear to have no advantage compared with bevacizumab for right-sided tumors in these patients. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether primary tumor location affects patients’ options for potentially curative resection.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO conference abstracts were searched. The inclusion criteria were RCT (randomized controlled trials) studies that evaluated the efficacy of anti-EGFR mAbs based on primary tumor location. The outcomes included ORR, ETS, and DpR. ORs for ORR were calculated with 95% confidence intervals by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2.0.

Result

Nine studies including nine RCTs were analyzed. Regardless of left- or right-sided tumors, the ORRs for anti-EGFR mAb (left-sided: 80.2%, 95% CI, 47–95%; I² = 76.9%; right-sided: 46.1%, 95% CI, 39.4–53.0%; I² = 18.9%) were both higher than the control arm including chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. The ORs for anti-EGFR mAbs have a significant benefit compared with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in left-sided tumors (OR = 2.19, 95% CI, 1.41–3.38; P < 0.001). For right-sided tumors, anti-EGFR mAbs still significantly improved the ORR compared with chemotherapy alone (OR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.05–2.90; P = 0.03), and the OR numerically favored the anti-EGFR mAbs compared with bevacizumab (OR = 1.281, 95% CI, 0.77–2.12; P = 0.335). The data of ETS and DpR from three RCTs also favored the EGFR antibody irrespective of tumor location. Resection data on differentiating tumor locations is inconclusive. For right-sided tumors, it should be noted that median PFS and OS were comparable for patients who achieved ETS in both treatment arms.

Conclusions

Anti-EGFR mAbs have advantages in the tumor shrinkage regardless of left- or right-sided tumors, which is important for conversion therapy. For right-sided tumors, anti-EGFR mAbs should remain the first choice for potentially curative resection in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. ETS may represent a subgroup of patients with right-sided tumors who might benefit from the anti-EGFR mAb.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1502-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The location of the primary colon cancer has no impact on outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastasis

BACKGROUND

The impact of the location of colorectal cancer on patient outcomes has been reported in several settings. The objective of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of the location of the primary colon cancer among patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery.

METHODS

Using the prospectively maintained clinical and biological digestive peritoneal metastasis database of the BIG-RENAPE network, we identified 796 patients treated by a complete cytoreductive surgery between January 2004 and January 2017 for colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases in 16 different institutions. The 2 primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. To evaluate the impact on overall survival and progression-free survival of potential prognostic factors (including the location of the primary colorectal cancer), these factors were included in univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Right-sided colorectal cancers were more often BRAF mutated and had microsatellite instability, whereas the frequency of RAS mutation was similar between right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancers. After a median follow-up time of 3.3 years, there was no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival according to tumor side. The lack of effect of tumor location on overall survival and progression-free survival was consistent across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing complete cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases, the site of the primary colorectal cancer was not associated with differences in progression-free survival or overall survival. Tumor side should not be used as a stratification factor in trials of colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases and should not be used in the selection process of patients for cytoreductive surgery.

The influence of tumour site on prognosis in metastatic colorectal carcinomas with primary tumour resection

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to compare the characteristics and prognosis between right- and left-sided metastatic colorectal carcinomas.

METHODS

Data from 937 patients with stage IV colorectal carcinomas (synchronous distant metastasis) who had a resection of the primary tumour between 1985 and 2014 were analysed. Carcinomas in the caecum to transverse colon were defined as right-sided (n = 250; 26.7%). They were compared to tumours located from the splenic flexure to the rectum categorised as left-sided (n = 687; 73.3%).

RESULTS

In right-sided carcinomas, we observed significantly more female patients (50.8 vs 36.2%; p < 0.001), more unfavourable histological types (24.0 vs 8.6%; p < 0.001), more M1c carcinomas (metastases to the peritoneum ± others; 32.0 vs 14.4%; p < 0.001) and more emergencies (11.6 vs 7.1%; p = 0.029), while multimodal treatment was utilised in fewer patients (51.6 vs 63.8%; p = 0.001) and curative resections were less frequently (24.1 vs 35.4%; p = 0.002). Prognosis was significantly worse in patients with right-sided carcinomas (2-year-survival 27.2 vs 44.6%, p < 0.01). This difference was more pronounced after R2 resection (15.3 vs 29.7%; p < 0.001), than after macroscopic curative resection (2-year-survival 63.9 vs 71.9%; p = 0.106). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, tumour site was found to be an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (HR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0-1.5; p = 0.012). During the three 10-year periods, the prognosis improved equally in patients with right- and left-sided carcinomas, while the differences in survival remained identical.

CONCLUSIONS

In a surgical patient cohort undergoing primary tumour resection, significant differences in prognosis were observed between patients with metastatic right- and left-sided colorectal carcinomas.

Impact of primary tumour location and RAS/BRAF mutational status in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line regimens containing oxaliplatin and bevacizumab: Prognostic factors from the AIO KRK0207 first-line and maintenance therapy trial

BACKGROUND

The major prognostic relevance of primary tumour location (LPT) in advanced colorectal cancer was shown in large retrospective studies, but quantitative estimates are highly heterogeneous, and there is still limited information about its impact within the framework of biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Therefore, we analysed LPT in relation to other clinical and molecular parameters, based on mature survival data from the recent randomised AIO KRK0207 trial.

METHODS

Patients uniformly received first-line induction treatment with a combination of bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. LPT was retrospectively determined using surgical reports, pathology reports and endoscopy reports. The prognostic analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimations and log-rank tests, while hazard ratios (HRs) and multivariable results were derived from Cox models.

RESULTS

Among 754 patients with unequivocal information on LPT, patients with left-sided tumours showed a median overall survival of 24.8 months compared with the right-sided cohort with 18.4 months (HR: 1.54, 95% confidence interval: 1.30-1.81, P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, LPT proved to be the strongest prognosticator (HR 1.60), with performance status, number of metastatic sites, baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and platelets independently retaining prognostic significance. In the subgroup of patients with known RAS/BRAF status (n = 567, 75%), a BRAF mutation showed the greatest unfavourable impact (HR 3.16). Although BRAF is strongly correlated to LPT, the latter remained a significant prognosticator in the BRAF wild-type subgroup. In contrast, no major impact of LPT was seen on tumours carrying RAS mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the framework of a uniform treatment strategy according to the current standards, LPT proved to have an important, although not solely dominating, relevance for survival prognosis. Its impact seems to be low in tumours with a RAS mutation.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT00973609.

Relationships between tumour response and primary tumour location, and predictors of long-term survival, in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line panitumumab therapy: retrospective analyses of the PRIME and PEAK clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Data from two trials of panitumumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were retrospectively analysed to investigate the effects of primary tumour location on early-tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR), and identify factors predicting long-term survival.

METHODS

Patients with RAS wild-type mCRC from PRIME (NCT00364013) and PEAK (NCT00819780) were included. ETS was defined as a ≥30% reduction in the sum-of-the-longest-diameters of measurable target lesions at eight weeks. DpR was the maximum percentage change from baseline to nadir in patients with shrinkage. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses of short- versus long-term survivor data were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 435/559 (78%) patients had left-sided disease. Of these, a higher proportion of patients treated with panitumumab versus comparator achieved ETS (PRIME: 62% vs. 36%; PEAK: 58% vs. 41%); median DpR was also higher with panitumumab (PRIME: 59% vs. 49%; PEAK: 70% vs. 48%). In pooled analyses of the studies, more patients with right-sided disease achieved ETS if treated with panitumumab than comparator (39% vs. 29%). Panitumumab treatment consistently predicted long-term survival.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line panitumumab was associated with improved ETS and DpR vs. comparator in patients with left-sided mCRC. ETS may identify a subgroup of patients with right-sided disease who might respond to panitumumab.

Expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 in colorectal cancer: Relationship with sidedness and prognosis

Expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1 has been demonstrated to confer a prognostic value in colorectal cancer (CRC), but no studies have investigated whether this association differs according to tumour location. In this study, immunohistochemical expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 was analysed in tissue microarrays with primary tumours from 557 incident CRC cases from a prospective population-based cohort. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses, adjusted for age, sex, TNM stage, differentiation grade and vascular invasion, were applied to determine the impact of biomarker expression on 5-year overall survival (OS), in the entire cohort and in subgroup analysis of right colon, left colon, and rectum. High PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells was an independent factor of a prolonged OS in the entire cohort (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.35 – 0.68), and in tumours of the right colon (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 – 0.74) and the left colon (HR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 – 0.61), but not in rectal cancer. Tumour-specific PD-L1-expression was not prognostic, neither in the full cohort nor according to tumour location. High immune cell-specific PD-1 expression was associated with a prolonged OS in the entire cohort and in tumours of the right colon, but not in the left colon or rectum, and only in univariable analysis. In conclusion, these results demonstrate that immune cell-specific PD-L1 and PD-1 expression is prognostic in a site-dependent manner, whereas tumour-specific PD-L1-expression is not prognostic in CRC.

Serum levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) predict outcome after resection of colorectal liver metastases

Background

In colorectal cancer (CRC), the liver is the most common site of metastasis. Surgical resection represents the standard therapy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, 5-year survival rates after resection do not exceed 50%, and despite existing preoperative stratification algorithms it is still debated which patients benefit most from surgical treatment. The soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has recently evolved as a promising biomarker for distinct clinical conditions. Here, we examined a potential role of suPAR as a biomarker in patients undergoing resection of CRLM.

Results

Correlating with upregulated uPAR tissue expression in resected metastases, serum concentrations of suPAR were significantly elevated in CRLM patients compared to healthy controls. Importantly, patients with preoperative suPAR serum levels above the identified ideal cut-off value of 4.83 ng/ml showed a significantly reduced overall survival after resection of CRLM, both in right- and left-sided primary CRC. Moreover, multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed preoperative suPAR serum levels as a prognostic factor for mortality. Additionally, elevated preoperative suPAR but not creatinine levels were a predictor of acute kidney injury (AKI) after CRLM resection, correlating with a longer postoperative hospitalization.

Conclusion

SuPAR represents a promising novel biomarker in CRLM patients that might help to guide preoperative treatment decisions regarding patients' outcome and to identify patients particularly susceptible to AKI.

Methods

Expression levels of uPAR were analyzed in CRLM tissue using RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry. SuPAR serum levels were measured by ELISA in 104 CRC patients undergoing hepatic resection for CRLM and 50 healthy controls.

The best strategy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients in first-line treatment: A classic and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, there is uncertainty on the best systemic treatment in first-line setting for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Indeed, several chemotherapy and biologics combinations showed an improvement on survival. We performed a systematic review with a pair-wise and bayesan meta-analysis to rank the best strategy for these patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search through March 2017 was performed to evaluate the association between several treatment combinations and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity rate (TR) in RAS WT mCRC patients. Data were extracted from studies and pooled using the random-effect model for pair-wise meta-analyses and bayesan model for network meta-analysis (NMA).

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 2518 individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Pooled analyses for subgroups stratified by type of schedule and tumor location demonstrated that anti-EGFR + doublet had the best OS when compared to doublet ± bevacizumab (0.767; 95%CI, 0.695-0.846; P < 0.0001). This benefit is limited to LSCC when compared to a doublet-based schedule and doublet + bevacizumab (HRs, 0.692; 95%CI, 0.596-0.804; P < 0.001; 0.706; 95%CI, 0.584-0.854; P < 0.001; respectively). No significant differences are detected in PFS, whereas the cetuximab-based regimens showed the highest ORR and TR. In NMA our ranking showed the best performance for FOLFOX + panitumumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that FOLFOX + panitumumab has the major probability to provide an improvement of survival with a good safety profile in patients with RAS WT mCRC with an added value from selection based on sidedness.

Recent advances in treatment for colorectal liver metastasis

A major challenge for the management of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is the multidisciplinary approach including surgery. Resection is the most important treatment strategy to prolong the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Even when resection is not possible as a primary treatment, it may still be carried out for curative intent after effective chemotherapy. Therefore, resection should always be considered when conducting chemotherapy for CRLM. Neoadjuvant anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody has shown a high response rate for RAS wild CRC. However, whether anti-EGFR antibody is superior to antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody for all types of CRLM is yet to be determined. Recently, several randomized control trials of first-line therapy for advanced CRC have been conducted, and some of them are ongoing. The optimal chemotherapy regimen and tumor biology indicated for neoadjuvant chemotherapy as well as conversion surgery are expected to be determined in the near future.

Consensus molecular subtypes classification of colorectal cancer as a predictive factor for chemotherapeutic efficacy against metastatic colorectal cancer

The consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) classification is one of the most robust colorectal cancer (CRC) classifications based on comprehensive gene expression profiles. This study aimed to clarify whether the CMS is a predictive factor for therapeutic effects of standard chemotherapies for metastatic CRC (mCRC). We retrospectively enrolled 193 patients with mCRCs, and using comprehensive gene expression data, classified them into 4 subtypes: CMS1-CMS4. The associations between the subtypes and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Regarding first-line chemotherapy, irinotecan (IRI)-based chemotherapy was significantly superior to oxaliplatin (OX)-based chemotherapy for progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.64) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.19-0.99) in CMS4. Regarding the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapy, CMS1 showed particularly worse PFS (HR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.31-4.39) and OS (HR = 4.23, 95% CI 1.83-9.04), and CMS2 showed particularly good PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.44-1.01) and OS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.87) compared with the other subtypes. The biological characteristics of CMS may influence the efficacy of chemotherapy. CMS might be a new predictive factor for the efficacy of chemotherapy against mCRCs.

Is primary sidedness a prognostic factor in patients with resected colon cancer liver metastases (CLM)?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have suggested that sidedness of origin from colorectal adenocarcinomas is a predictor of survival, however the impact of this factor in patients with resected colon cancer liver metastases (CLM) is not clear. So, in this study, we compared clinic and pathologic characteristics and long-term survival of patients with resected CLM according to the primary tumor location.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analyzes of a prospective database. Patients with resected CLM from 1998 to 2012 were included. Right colon included tumors from cecum to middle transverse colon, and left colon included tumors from splenic flexure to sigmoid.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one patients were included, 27 right colon and 124 left colon. In the latter group, there were more patients with synchronous disease (67.7 × 6.2%, P = 0.026) and a higher CEA (22.0 × 11.7 ng/mL, P = 0.001). However, K-Ras mutation was more frequent in right sided tumors (75.0 × 24.1%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in long term survival in both groups in this series even when adjusted for the confounding variables.

CONCLUSION

Sidedness do not seem to be a predictor of long term survival in patients with resected colon cancer liver metastases.

Effect of Primary Tumor Location on Second- or Later-line Treatment Outcomes in Patients With RAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and All Treatment Lines in Patients With RAS Mutations in Four Randomized Panitumumab Studies

BACKGROUND

The primary tumor location has a prognostic impact in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report the results from retrospective analyses assessing the effect of tumor location on prognosis and efficacy of second- and later-line panitumumab treatment in patients with RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC and on prognosis in all lines of treatment in patients with RAS mutant (MT) mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

RAS WT data (n = 483) from 2 randomized phase III panitumumab trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00339183 and NCT00113763) were analyzed for treatment outcomes stratified by tumor location. The second analysis assessed the effect of tumor location in RAS MT patients (n = 1205) from 4 panitumumab studies (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT00364013, NCT00819780, NCT00339183, and NCT00113763). Primary tumors located in the cecum to transverse colon were coded as right-sided; those located from the splenic flexure to the rectum were coded as left-sided.

RESULTS

Of all patients, the tumor location was ascertained for 83% to 88%; 71% to 77% of patients had left-sided tumors. RAS WT patients with right-sided tumors did worse for all efficacy parameters compared with those with left-sided tumors. The patients with left-sided tumors had better outcomes with panitumumab than with the comparator treatment. Because of the low patient numbers, no conclusions could be drawn for right-sided mCRC. The prognostic effect of tumor location on survival was unclear for RAS MT patients.

CONCLUSION

These retrospective analyses have confirmed that RAS WT right-sided mCRC is associated with a poor prognosis, regardless of the treatment. RAS WT patients with left-sided tumors benefitted from the addition of panitumumab in second or later treatment lines. Further research is warranted to determine the optimum management of right-sided mCRC and RAS MT tumors.

FOLFOX plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) is an effective first-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy combined with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) remains controversial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of adding panitumumab or cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in RAS wild type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment. The primary tumor location is also considered into this meta-analysis.

METHODS

RCT studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library to October 2017, supplemented by manually retrieving ASCO, ESMO conference abstracts. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and pooled odds ratios (OR) for the overall response rate (ORR) were calculated by Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

The results indicated that the addition of anti-EGFR mAbs to FOLFOX regimen in RAS wild-type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment resulted in considerable improvements in PFS (HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.82; P < .0001), OS (HR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.67-0.92; P = .003), and ORR (OR = 2.56; 95% CI: 1.77-3.70; P < .00001) compared with chemotherapy alone. However, in RAS/BRAF wild patients, no significant differences were observed when anti-EGFR mAb was added to FLOX or XELOX regimen compared with chemotherapy alone with regard to OS and PFS, whereas FOLFOX+anti-EGFR mAb showed a marked superior OS and PFS (OS, HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98; P = .03; PFS, HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82; P < .00001). A meta-analysis including TAILOR and PRIME study suggests that primary tumor location (PTL) predicted a survival benefit when adding the EGFR antibody to FOLFOX regimen in RAS-wild mCRC patients (OS, HR for left-sided: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.59-0.85; P = .0002 and HR for right-sided: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65-1.25; P = .53). However, the HR for PFS and ORR still suggests a benefit from the addition of anti-EGFR mAb in right-sided mCRC patients.

CONCLUSION

So these results suggest anti-EGFR mAb and oxaliplatin are good partners in the FOLFOX regimen. The addition of EGFR antibody to FOLFOX markedly improved efficacy in RAS-wild patients with left-sided mCRC. In RAS/BRAF-wild patients, the efficacy is similar. For patients with right-sided tumor, a benefit showing a trendency in favor of anti-EGFR mAb can still seen. The molecular characteristics behind the tumor location need to be more explored urgently.

Difference between right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancers: from embryology to molecular subtype

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the world, and it exhibits differences in incidence, pathogenesis, molecular pathways, and outcome depending on the location of the tumor. Differences in the microbiome, clinical characteristics, and chromosomal and molecular characteristics have been reported between the right and left side of the colon. Areas covered: This review focuses on the latest developments in epidemiological and chromosomal and molecular studies, which have enhanced our understanding on the underlying genetic and immunological differences between the right-sided colon and the left-sided colorectum in metastatic colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: The numerous findings regarding differences between right- and left-sided colon cancers should have an impact on colorectal cancer screening and therapy. The location of the colorectal cancer should be considered before group stratification into genetic, clinical, and especially chemotherapy trials. A more tailored approach to colon cancer treatment would be highly desirable if future trials further support the hypothesis of two distinct tumor entities.

Difference Between Left-Sided and Right-Sided Colorectal Cancer: A Focused Review of Literature

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide with a high mortality rate at the advanced stages. However, colorectal cancer is not a single type of tumor; its pathogenesis depends on the anatomical location of the tumor and differs between right side and left side of the colon. Tumors in the proximal colon (right side) and distal colon (left side) exhibit different molecular characteristics and histology. In the right-sided tumors, mutations in the DNA mismatch repair pathway are commonly observed; and these tumors generally have a flat histology. In the left-sided tumors, chromosomal instability pathway-related mutations, such as KRAS, APC, PIK3CA, p53 mutations are observed and these tumors demonstrate polypoid-like morphology. Therapy responses are totally different between these tumor entities. Left-sided colorectal cancer (LCRC) patients benefit more from adjuvant chemotherapies such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimes, and targeted therapies such as anti- epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy, and have a better prognosis. Right-sided colorectal cancer (RCRC) patients do not respond well to conventional chemotherapies, but demonstrate more promising results with immunotherapies because these tumors have high antigenic load. For the development of effective therapy regimes and better treatment options, it is essential to evaluate right-sided and left-sided tumors as separate entities, and design the therapy regime considering the differences between these tumors.

A Comprehensive Review of Sequencing and Combination Strategies of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The emergence of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has considerably improved survival, but has also resulted in a dilemma of identifying the optimal sequence and combination of various agents in the mCRC treatment landscape. A number of cytotoxic agents, including irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, and TAS-102, are available for treatment of mCRC. Additionally, whereas patients harboring rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS)-wild type mCRC can be treated with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab or antiangiogenic agents (bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, and ramucirumab), patients with RAS-mutant mCRC are limited to antiangiogenic agents as biologic options. Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, can be used in both RAS subgroups. As such, the recommended sequence of therapies that should be received by each subgroup must also be considered separately. This review provides an overview of recent clinical data for approved and investigational targeted therapies that have been studied across different mCRC treatment lines and patient subgroups. It also examines emerging trends in the treatment landscape for mCRC, including treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the utilization of genomic profiling.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Currently, there are no established guidelines for optimal sequencing of cytotoxic or targeted agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This review provides a snapshot of the current mCRC treatment paradigm and examines the latest clinical data that support the utilization of several targeted agents alone or in combination with backbone chemotherapy across different lines of treatment and patient populations, highlighting recommendations for their usage. Recent advances in the treatment landscape are also summarized, including genomic profiling and preliminary results with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The predictive effect of primary tumour location in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a Canadian consensus statement

In recently published data, the predictive value of primary tumour location for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with available biologic therapies has been explored. Recognizing the potential effect of those data on clinical practice, we convened a meeting of Canadian experts who treat metastatic colorectal cancer to develop a set of national, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on primary tumour location. This report summarizes the relevant evidence and presents the consensus recommendations of those experts.

Combination of primary tumor location and mismatch repair status guides adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer

Background

Current opinions on the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer are divided and reformative election of these patients is required. We examined whether the primary tumor location based on mismatch repair status and other risk factors could better inform the current guideline.

Materials and Methods

A total of 673 consecutive patients with stage II colon cancer were included in the analysis. Differences in the common clinicopathological factors between left-sided colon cancer and right-sided colon cancer were analyzed using Fisher's exact analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to distinguish the survival difference by primary tumor location and/or MMR status.

Results

RCC had a shorter overall survival (P = 0.001) and Disease-free survival (P = 0.050) than LCC but was associated with survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.001 and P = 0.011 for OS and DFS, respectively). Mismatch repair-proficient had a shorter OS (P = 0.036) and disease free survival (P = 0.034) than mismatch-repair deficient but chemotherapy improved the OS (P = 0.007). When the primary tumor location and MMR status were combined, the PMMR/RCC was the only subgroup that could benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002 for OS and DFS, respectively). Other tumors such as DMMR/RCC, DMMR/LCC, and PMMR/LCC did not benefit.

Conclusions

The observed survival benefits in PMMR/RCC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy will allow better selection of patients for chemotherapy who are in stage II.

The predictive value of primary tumor location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide. It has been reported that left- and right-sided CRC harbor varying disease characteristics, which leads to a difference in prognosis and response to therapy. Recently, there have been retrospective studies about tumor location in metastatic CRC (mCRC) and its potential to predict the effect of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapies. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the latest trials studying the predictive value of primary tumor location in mCRC and discuss biomarkers that might be associated with the differences in treatment response. Although data need to be interpreted with caution due to the absence of randomized trials stratified based on tumor location, patients with left-sided CRC seem to benefit more from anti-EGFR therapy than patients with right-sided CRC. Further clinical trials, stratified for tumor location, are warranted.

Clinical significance of BRAF non-V600E mutations on the therapeutic effects of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment in patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the Biomarker Research for anti-EGFR monoclonal Antibodies by Comprehensive Cancer genomics (BREAC) study

Background:

Patients with BRAF^V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have a poorer prognosis as well as resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies. However, it is unclear whether BRAF mutations other than BRAF^V600E (BRAF^non-V600E mutations) contribute to anti-EGFR antibody resistance.

Methods:

This study was composed of exploratory and inference cohorts. Candidate biomarkers identified by whole exome sequencing from super-responders and nonresponders in the exploratory cohort were validated by targeted resequencing for patients who received anti-EGFR antibody in the inference cohort.

Results:

In the exploratory cohort, 31 candidate biomarkers, including KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations, were identified. Targeted resequencing of 150 patients in the inference cohort revealed 40 patients with RAS (26.7%), 9 patients with BRAF^V600E (6.0%), and 7 patients with BRAF^non-V600E mutations (4.7%), respectively. The response rates in RAS, BRAF^V600E, and BRAF^non-V600E were lower than those in RAS/BRAF wild-type (2.5%, 0%, and 0% vs 31.9%). The median PFS in BRAF^non-V600E mutations was 2.4 months, similar to that in RAS or BRAF^V600E mutations (2.1 and 1.6 months) but significantly worse than that in wild-type RAS/BRAF (5.9 months).

Conclusions:

Although BRAF^non-V600E mutations identified were a rare and unestablished molecular subtype, certain BRAF^non-V600E mutations might contribute to a lesser benefit of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment.

Survival Outcomes in Patients With RAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Classified According to Köhne Prognostic Category and BRAF Mutation Status

BACKGROUND

Köhne prognostic score is used to classify patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as high, intermediate, or low risk. Using data from 2 phase III trials, we analyzed survival in patients categorized according to Köhne prognostic category and virus-induced rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PRIME (Panitumumab Randomized Trial In Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy) (first-line) and 20050181 (second-line) were studies of chemotherapy with or without panitumumab. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed retrospectively in rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) wild type (WT) and RAS WT+BRAF WT mCRC in each Köhne category, and in BRAF mutant (MT) mCRC.

RESULTS

In PRIME (n = 495) and 20050181 (n = 420), 53 (11%) and 44 (10%) patients, respectively, had BRAF MT mCRC. Of the RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown populations, 85/267/90 and 82/211/83 were categorized as high/medium/low risk, respectively. PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for Köhne group, for patients with RAS WT + BRAF WT/unknown mCRC favored panitumumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in both studies. In PRIME, the PFS HR was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.90) and OS HR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.95). In 20050181, PFS and OS HRs were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.99), respectively. Median PFS and OS were lower in patients with BRAF MT mCRC than in any of the 3 risk categories for patients with RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown mCRC.

CONCLUSION

During first- and second-line treatment, Köhne prognostic score allows accurate risk classification in RAS WT mCRC. BRAF MT mCRC should be classified as high risk regardless of other parameters. Panitumumab with chemotherapy might provide survival benefits versus chemotherapy alone in RAS WT and RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown mCRC, overall and across risk categories.