Adaptation of international guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer: an asian consensus

Oral drugs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common forms of cancer, with an estimated 1.36 million new cases and almost 700,000 deaths annually. Approximately 21% of patients with CRC have metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective of this article is to review the literature on the efficacy and safety of oral drugs available for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several such drugs have been developed, and fluoropyrimidines are the backbone of chemotherapy in this indication. They exert their antitumour activity by disrupting the synthesis and function of DNA and RNA. Oral fluoropyrimidines include prodrugs capecitabine, tegafur, eniluracil/5-fluorouracil, tegafur/uracil, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI). Oral drugs offer several advantages over injectable formulations, including convenience, flexibility, avoidance of injection-related adverse events (AEs) and, in some circumstances, lower costs. However, oral drugs may not be suitable for patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or malabsorption, they may result in reduced treatment adherence and should not be co-administered with drugs that interfere with absorption or hepatic metabolism. Oral fluoropyrimidines such as capecitabine, as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan or bevacizumab, are as effective as intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in first-line treatment of mCRC. Other oral fluoropyrimidines, such as FTD/TPI, are effective in patients with mCRC who are refractory, intolerant or ineligible for 5-FU. In addition, oral fluoropyrimidines are used in adjuvant treatment of mCRC. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor used in patients in whom several previous lines of therapy have failed. Frequent AEs associated with oral drugs used in the treatment of CRC include hand-foot syndrome and gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities.

Tumor Response to Irinotecan is Associated with IL-10 Expression Level in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-Results from mCRC Biomarker Study

Purpose

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Resistance to chemotherapy is the main reason for the failure of the treatment of mCRC. IL-10 has been reported to decrease after surgery and increase after mCRC reoccurrence. The role of IL-10 in chemotherapy drug resistance of mCRC is not well elucidated.

Patients and Methods

The retrospective study recruited 264 mCRC patients between January 2012 and December 2016 (NCT03532711). All the enrolled patients received an oxaliplatin-containing or irinotecan-containing regimen. The expression level of IL-10 in 232 patients’ plasma and 68 patients’ tumor tissue was examined. The relationships between IL-10 and clinicopathological characteristics were analyzed. Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression were used to evaluate the prognostic impact of IL-10.

Results

The median concentration of IL-10 was 7.60 pg/mL before treatment and 11.08 pg/mL after treatment, which suggested that IL-10 level was significantly increased by treatment with a chemotherapeutic regimen (p = 0.000). By utilizing univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses, we found that low IL-10 level in plasma was significantly associated with improved overall survival (OS) of mCRC patients treated with irinotecan-containing regimen-with optimal cutoff value of 5.525pg/mL, respectively (p =0.002). In addition, the low IL-10 expression level in tumor tissue was significantly associated with the improved OS for the irinotecan-containing regimen (p = 0.023).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that IL-10 could act as a prognostic biomarker for mCRC patients undergoing irinotecan-containing chemotherapy.

Treatment patterns and direct medical costs of metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective study of electronic medical records from urban China

Objectives: To describe direct medical costs associated with each line of treatment among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients in China.Methods: Electronic medical records between 2011 and 2016 were extracted from 12 tertiary hospitals in China for adult patients who initiated third-line treatment at least nine months before the end of data collection. Direct medical costs included costs of wards, diagnostic tests, surgical procedures, special materials, drugs and others. Costs were assessed by line of treatment, and drug costs were further breakdown for patients receiving chemotherapy alone and those receiving chemo- and biologics-combined therapy.Results: Of the 404 mCRC patients, the mean age was 55 years old and 62% were male. Oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens dominated first- and second-line treatment, respectively (44 and 37%). From first- to second- to third-line, the proportion of patients receiving targeted biologics increased from 18% at first-line and 12% at second-line to 34% at third-line; median number of treatment cycles reduced from 6 to 4 and to 2. The corresponding mean direct medical costs per person per cycle increased from $2,514 to $2,678 to $5,121. Mean drug costs per cycle increased from $2,314 to $2,673 to $4,316 among patients receiving chemotherapy alone and from $3,245 to $2,717 to $6,533 among patients receiving chemo- and biologics-combined therapy.Conclusions: Before 2017, mCRC patients in China did not receive the maximum benefits of precision medicine breakthroughs. Reduced treatment cycles and increased costs per cycle from first- to third-line suggested poor healthcare resource utilization. With earlier initiation and more treatment cycles, targeted biologics may better demonstrate their effectiveness among Chinese patients. Our findings reflected the urgent need to increase drug accessibility in China before 2017 and underscore that including innovative biologics into Chinese health insurance plans can reduce patients' economic burden and improve the management of mCRC.

Combination chemotherapy with TAS-102 plus bevacizumab in salvage-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A single-center, retrospective study examining the prognostic value of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score in salvage-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer

The combination regimen of TAS-102, a novel oral nucleoside antitumor agent containing trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride, with bevacizumab (C-TASK FORCE), a selective monoclonal antibody inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor-A, as salvage-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was established based on its high clinical effectiveness. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) in patients receiving TAS-102 plus bevacizumab. The study included 17 patients (12 men and 5 women, mean age 60.4±13.4 years) with unresectable mCRC who were confirmed to have wild-type or mutant RAS genes. The patients received salvage-line treatment with TAS-102 plus bevacizumab at the Surgical Oncology Department of Gifu University School of Medicine between March 2016 and August 2018. The study population was heavily pretreated; the majority of the patients (71%) had received ≥4 prior regimens and, in addition to fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, all had received bevacizumab (100%) and either cetuximab or panitumumab (47%). The RAS status was wild-type in 9 (53%) and mutant in 8 (47%) patients. The primary tumor locations included the right-sided colon in 5 patients (29%; cecum in 2 and transverse colon in 3 cases) and left-sided colorectum in 12 patients [71%; sigmoid colon in 4, rectosigmoid (Rs) in 4, and rectum above/below the peritoneal reflection (Ra/b) in 4 cases]. Metastatic sites included the liver in 15 (88%), lung in 13 (76%), lymph nodes in 7 (41%), and peritoneal dissemination in 5 (24%) patients. The number of metastatic sites was 1 in 3 (18%) and >2 in 14 (82%) patients. Their first staging imaging scans (after 2 cycles of therapy) were available for review in all 17 patients. At first evaluation, 5 (29%) patients had progressive disease (PD), 12 (71%) had stable disease, and none had a partial response to TAS-102 plus bevacizumab. The median overall survival (OS) of 14.1 months and progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.8 months were comparable to the 11.2 and 5.6 months, respectively, in the C-TASK FORCE study. Upon considering three groups, namely mGPS 0, mGPS 1 and mGPS 2, the median PFS times were significantly different (mGPS 0 vs. mGPS 2, P=0.02; and mGPS 1 vs. mGPS 2, P=0.06). The median PFS times in the mGPS 0, 1 and 2 groups were 12.1, 4.8 and 2.3 months, respectively. Median OS was also significantly different (mGPS 0 vs. mGPS 2, P=0.01; and mGPS 1 vs. mGPS 2, P=0.04). The median OS times in the mGPS 0, 1 and 2 groups were 14.0, not reached, and 2 months, respectively. The present study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination as salvage-line treatment. This combination therapy (the TAS-102 plus bevacizumab) has obtained valid results with PFS OS as well as C-TASK.FORCE study. The results of the present study also confirmed the prognostic accuracy of mGPS in salvage-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus guidelines for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was published in 2016, identifying both a more strategic approach to the administration of the available systemic therapy choices, and a greater emphasis on the use of ablative techniques, including surgery. At the 2016 ESMO Asia Meeting, in December 2016, it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting, endorsed by both ESMO and JSMO, immediately after the JSMO 2017 Annual Meeting. The aim was to adapt the ESMO consensus guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences relating to the toxicity as well as other aspects of certain systemic treatments in patients of Asian ethnicity. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC identified by the Presidents of the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), Korea (Korean Association for Clinical Oncology), Malaysia (Malaysian Oncological Society), Singapore (Singapore Society of Oncology) and Taiwan (Taiwan Oncology Society). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) Versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III TAILOR Trial

PURPOSE

Cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy is a standard-of-care first-line treatment regimen for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, the efficacy of cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) has never before been proven in a controlled and randomized phase III trial. To our knowledge, the TAILOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01228734) is the first randomized, multicenter, phase III study of the addition of cetuximab to first-line FOLFOX prospectively choosing a RAS wt population and thus providing confirmative data for the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus FOLFOX versus FOLFOX alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

TAILOR is an open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase III trial in patients from China comparing FOLFOX-4 with or without cetuximab in RAS wt (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2 to 4) mCRC. The primary end point of TAILOR was progression-free survival time; secondary end points included overall survival time, overall response rate, and safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

In the modified intent-to-treat population of 393 patients with RAS wt mCRC, adding cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 significantly improved the primary end point of progression-free survival time compared with FOLFOX-4 alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; P = .004; median, 9.2 v 7.4 months, respectively), as well as the secondary end points of overall survival time (current assessment after 300 events: hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.96; P = .02; median, 20.7 v 17.8 months, respectively) and overall response rate (odds ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.61 to 3.61; P < .001; 61.1% v 39.5%, respectively). Treatment was well tolerated, and there were no new or unexpected safety findings.

CONCLUSION

The TAILOR study met all of its objectives and relevant clinical end points, confirming cetuximab in combination with FOLFOX as an effective standard-of-care first-line treatment regimen for patients with RAS wt mCRC.

Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) Monotherapy in Asian Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TERRA Study

Purpose

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) was effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase II Japanese trial. This regional trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in Asian patients with mCRC with or without exposure to biologic therapy.

Patients and Methods

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial was conducted at 30 sites in China, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand. Patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum and known KRAS status who were refractory or intolerant to two or more prior chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio; minimization method) to receive trifluridine/tipiracil (twice per day orally; 5 days on and 2 days off for 2 weeks, followed by 14 days off per cycle) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (intent-to-treat population).

Results

Between October 16, 2013, and June 15, 2015, 406 patients were randomly assigned to receive trifluridine/tipiracil (n = 271) or placebo (n = 135). Risk of death was significantly lower in the trifluridine/tipiracil arm than in the placebo arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; log-rank P = .035). Median overall survival was significantly longer in the trifluridine/tipiracil than in the placebo arm (7.8 months [95% CI, 7.1 to 8.8 months] v 7.1 months [95% CI, 5.9 to 8.2 months], respectively), for a median survival follow-up time of 13.8 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 15.3 months) compared with 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 17.3 months), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar between the arms (trifluridine/tipiracil, n = 63 [23.2%]; placebo, n = 32 [23.7%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported.

Conclusion

Trifluridine/tipiracil has a statistically significant survival benefit compared with placebo in Asian patients with mCRC refractory or intolerant to standard chemotherapies, regardless of exposure to biologic therapy. The safety profile is similar to previous reports.

Combination chemotherapy with Regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: A single center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Regorafenib has been demonstrated as effective in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Combination use with chemotherapy has not been reported. We examined the efficacy and safety of adding chemotherapy to Regorafenib for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer(mCRC) patients.

METHODS

We recruited mCRC patients at our institute who received either regorafenib monotherapy or regorafenib in combination with other chemotherapies. All patients had received chemo and target therapies and presented with disease progression before regorafenib treatment. The primary end point was overall survival.

FINDINGS

Between September1, 2015 and May 31, 2017, 100 mCRC patients at our institute received regorafenib treatment. 39 patients were excluded due to poor performance, lack of timely treatment, or inadequate clinical data. A total of 34 patients received regorafenib combined with other chemotherapies, and 27 patients received regorafenib alone. Median follow up time was 10.4 and 6.1 months, respectively. The primary end point of median OS was higher in the combination group than in the single use group (20.9m vs 10.3m, p = 0.015). The most frequent adverse events were hand-foot skin reactions(16[47.1%]vs 12[44.4%]), fatigue(6[17.6%] vs 7[25.9%]), gastrointestinal discomfort (7[20.6%] vs 6[22.2%]), neutropenia (4[11.8%] vs 1[3.7%]), diarrhea(4[11.8%] vs 1[3.7%]), and mucositis(5[14.7%] vs 1[3.7%]).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed the efficacy and side effects of regorafenib combination treatment. Superiority in median OS and median PFS was noted in the combination group. The sampling difference between the study and observation groups effects justifies the comparison. Further clinical evidence of combination therapy efficacy is pending future studies.

The current status of treatment for colorectal cancer in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers all over the world, but its epidemiology is obviously different in various regions.

METHODS

The treatment of CRC also has varying characteristics due to differences in economy, geography, disease onset, chemotherapy, and other factors, although international guidelines are used to guide the treatment of CRC in China.

RESULTS

This paper summarizes the current status of CRC treatment, including surgical therapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, postoperative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, maintenance therapy, and immunotherapy, according to the clinical situation in China, so as to provide better therapy and improve clinical practice for patients with CRC.

CONCLUSION

This research shows that the treatment of colorectal cancer continues to progress, and the patient's efficacy and quality of life have improved.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

MicroRNA-378g enhanced radiosensitivity of NPC cells partially by targeting protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of microRNA-378g (miR-378g) on radiosensitivity and metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells and study how miR-378g regulated Src homology region 2 domain-containing phosphatase-1 (SHP-1) expression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect the expression level of miR-378g and SHP-1 mRNA in different nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) cell lines. MiR-378g mimics were transfected into NPC cells and radiosensitivity was determined by colony formation assay. Cell apoptotic rate was determined by flow cytometry analysis. Cell invasion was examined by transwell assay. SHP-1 transcriptional activity was examined by luciferase assay. SHP-1 expression level was determined by Western blot. Lentivirus containing SHP-1 gene and miR-378g mimics were co-transfected into NPC cells and radiosensitivity and metastasis were detected by colony formation assay and transwell assay again.

RESULTS

Expression of miR-378g and SHP-1 mRNA was negatively correlated in NPC cell lines. MiR-378g mimics enhanced radiosensitivity, promoted apoptosis and decreased invasion in NPC cells. SHP-1 expression was inhibited by miR-378g mimics. Luciferase reporter assay showed that miR-378g directly targeted SHP-1 by binding to 3' untranslated region (3'UTR) of SHP-1 mRNA. Overexpression of SHP-1 partially inversed the effect of miR-378g mimics on radiosensitivity, but had no effect on cell invasion.

CONCLUSION

MiR-378g enhanced radiosensitivity partially by targeting SHP-1 in NPC cells. Cell invasion was also partially inhibited by miR-378g, but the effect was not mediated by SHP-1.

MicroRNA-4649-3p inhibits cell proliferation by targeting protein tyrosine phosphatase SHP-1 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells

The present study aimed to investigate the influence of microRNA-4649-3p on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) cell proliferation and how it regulated SHP-1 expression. The online software TargetScan was used to predict the microRNAs targeting SHP-1 and identified that miR-4649-3p was one of the possible miRNAs targeting SHP-1. Subsequently, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect the expression level of miR-4649-3p and SHP-1 mRNA in different NPC cell lines. The miR-4649-3p mimics and inhibitors were transfected into NPC cells and cell proliferation was examined by the MTT assay. The SHP-1 expression level was determined by PCR and western blot analysis. Lentivirus containing the SHP-1 gene and miR-4649-3p mimics was co-transfected into the NPC cells and cell proliferation was detected by the MTT assay. The expression level of miR-4649-3p and SHP-1 mRNA was negatively correlated in the NPC cell lines. miR-4649-3p mimics suppressed NPC cell proliferation whereas miR-4649-3p inhibitors promoted NPC cell proliferation. The SHP-1 expression level was suppressed when transfected with miR-4649-3p mimics in NPC cells. The miR-4649-3p inhibitors increased SHP-1 expression. The luciferase reporter assay showed that miR-4649-3p directly targeted SHP-1 by binding to the 3'-untranslated region of SHP-1 mRNA. Overexpression of SHP-1 inversed the inhibited effect of miR-4649-3p mimics on cell proliferation. In conclusion, miR-4649-3p inhibits cell proliferation by targeting SHP-1 in NPC cells.

Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the international randomised phase 3 CORRECT trial (NCT01103323), regorafenib significantly improved overall survival versus placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Of the 760 patients in CORRECT, 111 were Asian (mostly Japanese). This phase 3 trial was done to assess regorafenib in a broader population of Asian patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer than was studied in CORRECT.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done in 25 hospitals in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, we recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer who had received at least two previous treatment lines or were unable to tolerate standard treatments. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, without other uncontrolled medical disorders. We randomly allocated patients (2:1; with a computer-generated unicentric randomisation list [prepared by the study funder] and interactive voice response system; block size of six; stratified by metastatic site [single vs multiple organs] and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease [<18 months vs ≥18 months]) to receive oral regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo on days 1-21 of each 28 day cycle; patients in both groups were also to receive best supportive care. Participants, investigators, and the study funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and we analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584830.

FINDINGS

Between April 29, 2012, and Feb 6, 2013, we screened 243 patients and randomly assigned 204 patients to receive either regorafenib (136 [67%]) or placebo (68 [33%]). After a median follow-up of 7·4 months (IQR 4·3-12·2), overall survival was significantly better with regorafenib than it was with placebo (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·40-0·77, one-sided p=0·00016; median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·3-9·8] in the regorafenib group vs 6·3 months [4·8-7·6] in the placebo group). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 132 (97%) of 136 regorafenib recipients and 31 (46%) of 68 placebo recipients. The most frequent grade 3 or higher regorafenib-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (22 [16%] of 136 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hypertension (15 [11%] vs two [3%] of 68 patients in the placebo group), hyperbilirubinaemia (nine [7%] vs one [1%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [7%] vs none), alanine aminotransferase concentration increases (nine [7%] vs none), aspartate aminotransferase concentration increases (eight [6%] vs none), lipase concentration increases (six [4%] vs one [1%]), and maculopapular rash (six [4%] vs none). Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 12 (9%) patients in the regorafenib group and three (4%) in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

This phase 3 trial is the second to show an overall survival benefit with regorafenib compared with placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantiating the role of regorafenib as an important treatment option for patients whose disease has progressed after standard treatments. In this trial, preceding standard treatments did not necessarily include targeted treatments. Adverse events were generally consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib in this setting.

FUNDING

Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.