Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Comparison

Sequential Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Taiwan: Real-World Evidence From Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil Use

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of sequential treatment with regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD-TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Taiwan.

METHODS

Data were obtained from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) to assess clinical outcomes in mCRC patients who were treated with both drugs in either sequential order from 2016 to 2019. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox's proportional hazard models, with adjustments made for age, gender, Quan-CCI score, presence of liver metastases, number of metastatic sites, and the use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor medications. Additionally, age-stratified subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty-eight patients receiving both study drugs were included. The regorafenib/FTD-TPI group demonstrated a longer median OS of 14.1 months compared with 10.2 months in the FTD-TPI/regorafenib group (p = 0.007). The survival benefit for the regorafenib/FTD-TPI sequence remained significant after adjustment (adjusted HR, 1.49; p = 0.002). The mean treatment duration was also longer for regorafenib/FTD-TPI than FTD-TPI/regorafenib (337 vs. 214 days; p < 0.01). No significant difference between the sequential treatment groups was observed in any adverse event of interest. Both subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded outcomes consistent with the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that initiating treatment with regorafenib followed by FTD-TPI had superior clinical outcomes compared with the reverse sequence among mCRC patients. This study offers real-world evidence for clinical decision-making and treatment optimization.

Efficacy of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil According to Extended RAS Evaluation in Advanced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few molecular markers driving treatment selection in later lines of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer patients. The vast majority of patients who progress after first- and second-line therapy undergo chemotherapy regardless of molecular data.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive effects of specific RAS mutations on overall survival of patients receiving regorafenib (rego), trifluridine/tipiracil (TFD/TPI), or both.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study based on data from a previous study of our research network, involving nine Italian institutions over a 10-year timeframe (2012-2022). Extended RAS analysis, involving KRAS exon 2-4 and NRAS exon 2-4, and BRAF were the main criteria for inclusion in this retrospective evaluation. Patients with BRAF mutation were excluded. Patients were classified according to treatment (rego- or TFD/TPI-treated) and RAS mutational status (wild-type [WT], KRAS codon 12 mutations, KRAS codon 13 mutations, KRAS rare mutations and NRAS mutations, KRAS G12C mutation and KRAS G12D mutation).

RESULTS

Overall, 582 patients were included in the present analysis. Overall survival did not significantly differ in rego-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in patients carrying G12D mutation (12.0 months), Codon 13 mutation (8.0 months), and Codon 12 mutation (7.0 months) has been observed, when compared with WT patients (6.0 months). Overall survival did not significantly differ in TFD/TPI-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in WT patients had been observed (9.0 months) in comparison with the entire population (7.0 months). Patients receiving both drugs displayed a longer survival when compared with the population of patients receiving rego alone (p = 0.005) as well as the population receiving TFD/TPI alone (p < 0.001), suggesting a group enriched for favorable prognostic factors. However, when each group was analyzed separately, the addition of TFD/TPI therapy to the rego-treated group improved survival only in all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.003). Differently, the addition of rego therapy to TFD/TPI-treated patients significantly improved OS in the Codon 12 group (p = 0.0004), G12D group (p = 0.003), and the rare mutations group (p = 0.02), in addition to all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.002). The rego-TFD/TPI sequence, compared with the reverse sequence, significantly improved OS only in the KRAS codon 12 group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that RAS mutations do not affect outcome in rego-treated patients as well as TFD/TPI-treated patients. Nevertheless, a trend toward a higher efficacy of rego in RAS-mutated (in particular codon 12, rare RAS mutations, and G12D) patients has been recorded. The rego-TFD/TPI sequence seems to be superior to the reverse sequence in patients carrying an RAS codon 12 mutation, although the impact of other factors as disease burden or performance status cannot be excluded.

Fruquintinib as new treatment option in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: is there an optimal sequence?

INTRODUCTION

Available treatments for colorectal cancer are limited. However, in the last few years several advances and new treatment options became available and expanded the continuum of care in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

AREAS COVERED

Fruquintinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective in heavily pretreated mCRC progressing to trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD/TPI) or regorafenib or both. Preclinical studies have shown that fruquintinib inhibits with high selectivity VEGFR 1-2-3, leading to a blockade in angiogenesis process, but also acts, with weak inhibition, on RET, FGFR-1, and c-kit kinases. Fruquintinib demonstrated good efficacy and tolerance in chemorefractory mCRC in two phase III trial: FRESCO and FRESCO 2. These results led to FDA approval of fruquintinib for pretreated mCRC patients who received prior fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Fruquintinib is a valid therapeutic option for heavily pretreated mCRC patients. However, an optimal sequence of treatments is yet to be defined. In this review, we propose an algorithm for later lines of treatment to integrate fruquintinib as a standard of care together with the new therapeutic combinations that recently showed clinical benefit for chemorefractory mCRC, in both molecularly selected (e.g. KRASG12C or HER2 amplification) and in non-oncogenic driven patients.

Prognostic factors in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil

PURPOSE

The systemic treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are unsatisfactory, and the disease recurs despite the use of numerous medications and their combinations. Trifluridine/Tipiracil is a relatively new drug used in refractory mCRC. Little is known about its real-world effectiveness and prognostic and predictive factors. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a prognostic model for refractory mCRC treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the data from 163 patients who had received Trifluridine/Tipiracil as a third or fourth line of treatment for refractory mCRC.

RESULTS

After starting Trifluridine/Tipiracil, 21.5% of patients survived one year, and the median overall survival after Trifluridine/Tipiracil initiation was 251 days (SD: 17.855; 95%CI: 216-286). Median progression-free survival after Trifluridine/Tipiracil initiation was 56 days (SD: 4.826; 95%CI 47-65). Moreover, the median overall survival from diagnosis was 1333 days (SD: 82.84; 95%CI: 1170-1495). In forward stepwise multivariate Cox regression analysis, initial radical treatment (HR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.372-0.819, p < 0.003), the number of cycles of first-line chemotherapy (HR = 0.978, 95% CI 0.961-0.995, p < 0.011), the number of cycles of second-line chemotherapy (HR = 0.955, 95% CI 0.931-0.98, p < 0.011), BRAF mutation (HR = 3.016, 95% CI = 1.207-7.537, p = 0.018), and hypertension (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.44-0.931, p = 0.02) were all associated with survival after Trifluridine/Tipiracil initiation. Our model and model-based nomogram displayed an AUC of 0.623 for one-year survival estimation in the testing cohort. The C-index for the prediction nomogram was 0.632.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a prognostic model for refractory mCRC treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil based on five variables. Moreover, we reported a nomogram which could be used by oncologists in clinic visits on a daily basis.

Treatment Settings and Outcomes with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil at Third-Line Treatment and beyond in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes.

RESULTS

The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a disease of older patients, but few guidelines directly address age in their recommendations. Older patients may present comorbidities that affect the choice of chemotherapy, and care must be taken when choosing the best approach. This narrative review aimed to describe the literature regarding approved oral agents for third-line treatment in older patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib, and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI).

Trifluridine/tipiracil as a therapeutic option in real life setting of metastatic colorectal cancer: An efficacy and safety analysis

Background: In the phase III RECOURSE trial, the orally administered combination trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) demonstrated a survival benefit and an acceptable safety profile, earning approval as a third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in daily clinical practice in Romanian population.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective, and observational study analyzed patients with mCRC that received chemotherapy with trifluridine/tipiracil between May 2019 and May 2022 at the Oncology Institute Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuță in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Study endpoints included safety, and median progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: In this Romanian cohort (n = 50) the most common treatment-emergent adverse event was haematological toxicity (76%): anemia (50%), leucopenia (38%), neutropenia (34%), and thrombocytopenia (30%), followed by fatigue (60%), and abdominal pain (18%). Overall, the median progression-free survival was 3.85 months (95% CI: 3.1–4.6 months). PFS was significantly correlated with the number of FTD/TPI administrations and prior surgery.

Conclusion: Our study corroborated the previously described safety profile for FTD/TPI in the third-line setting, and demonstrated relatively superior mPFS.

Influence of precedent drug on the subsequent therapy in the sequence of trifluridine/tipiracil with/out bevacizumab and regorafenib for unresectable or recurrent colorectal cancer

Background

Trifluridine/tipiracil (TFTD), with or without bevacizumab (Bev), and regorafenib are salvage chemotherapy options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here, we examined the influence of precedent drug on the efficacy of subsequent drug.

Method

The subjects were patients with mCRC who received salvage chemotherapy with TFTD (with/without Bev) followed by regorafenib (TFTD→Rego group/TFTD+Bev→Rego group), or reverse sequence (Rego→TFTD group) at the National Cancer Center Hospital between November 2013 and December 2020. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), tumor growth rate (TGR), and tumor growth kinetics (TGK) in the first evaluation were assessed in the three groups.

Results

A total of 69 patients, including 27 in the TFTD→Rego group, 13 in the TFTD+Bev→Rego group, and 29 in the Rego→TFTD group, were identified. There were no significant differences in the OS among the three groups, and in the PFS and DCR between the precedent and subsequent therapies in any of the groups. The median TGR (%/month) and TGK (mm/month) in the precedent→subsequent therapy were 50.9→32.7 (p = 0.044) and 8.76→7.79 in the TFTD→Rego group, 25.4→36.1 and 7.49→9.92 in the TFTD+Bev→Rego group, and 40.8→24.4 (p = 0.027) and 8.02→7.20 in the Rego→TFTD group, respectively.

Conclusion

In crossover use of TFTD with/without Bev and regorafenib, both agents showed similar efficacy in terms of the conventional parameters, but the differences observed in the TGR and TGK might suggest some influence of prior regorafenib treatment on the efficacy of subsequent TFTD therapy, and vice versa.

An Observational Study of Trifluridine/Tipiracil-Containing Regimen Versus Regorafenib-Containing Regimen in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are no randomized control trials comparing the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Herein, we conducted an observational study to compare the oncologic outcomes of trifluridine/tipiracil-containing regimen (TAS-102) and regorafenib-containing regimen (REG) in patients with mCRC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Patients who were diagnosed to have mCRC in 2015 to 2021 and treated with TAS-102-containing regimen or REG-containing regimen were recruited. Monotherapy or combination therapy were all allowed in this study. Oncologic outcomes were presented with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were enrolled into our study, accounting for 50 patients with TAS-102 and 75 patients with REG. Of these patients, 64% were treated with TAS-102 or REG monotherapy, while the remaining were treated with TAS-102 combination or REG combination. In general, the median PFS and OS were 3.7 versus 2.0 months (P = 0.006) and 9.2 versus 6.8 months (P = 0.048) in TAS-102 and REG, respectively. The ORR and DCR were 44% versus 20% (P < 0.001) and 72% versus 43% (P < 0.001) in TAS-102 and REG, respectively. As for treatment strategies, the survival were significantly longer in combination than in monotherapy, no matter in TAS-102 or REG group. Multivariate analysis showed TAS-102 and combination therapy were independent predictor associated with better survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that TAS-102 had better oncologic outcomes than REG in patients with mCRC, especially in combination. Further prospective trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Rationale and design of the PROMETCO study: a real-world, prospective, longitudinal cohort on the continuum of care of metastatic colorectal cancer from a clinical and patient perspective

The PROMETCO study is collecting real-world data on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with two progressions. This international, prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study is collecting data on mCRC patients with two disease progressions since diagnosis and receiving subsequent treatment. Objectives include overall survival, treatment patterns, effectiveness and safety and patient-reported outcomes using the EuroQol 5-level, 5-dimensional questionnaire, the Brief Fatigue Inventory and a modified version of the ACCEPTance by the Patients of their Treatment (ACCEPT©) questionnaire. Data are collected retrospectively and prospectively up to 18 months. As of 13 October 2021, 544 patients from 18 countries had been enrolled. To the authors' knowledge, PROMETCO is the first international, real-world study of the continuum of care of mCRC patients in this setting.

Trial registration number: NCT03935763 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

TAS-102 Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TAS-102 monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the literature on TAS-102 treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Extracted data include median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and the incidence of adverse events for meta-analysis.

Results

Our study found that the mOS of patients treated with TAS-102 monotherapy was 6.95 (95% CI: 6.26-7.72) months and the mPFS was 2.53 (95% CI: 2.31-2.78) months. The mOS in patients treated by TAS-102 combined with bevacizumab was 10.41 (95% CI: 8.40-12.89) months, and the mPFS is 4.35 (95% CI: 3.05-6.20) months. In the control experiment, the patients' mOS and mPFS were improved. TAS-102+B vs. TAS-102 (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.93; OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.83) and TAS-102 vs. placebo (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67; OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.62) were studied to actively prevent the occurrence of neutropenia, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and vomiting.

Conclusion

TAS-102 monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab can significantly improve the survival of patients and prevent specific adverse events from happening.

Effect of neutropenia on survival outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab

Trifluridine (FTD)/tipiracil (TPI) plus bevacizumab (Bev) is a promising late-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a well-known predictor of FTD/TPI efficacy, whether CIN is a predictive marker of efficacy for FTD/TPI + Bev remains unclear. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of FTD/TPI + Bev and the predictive markers of its efficacy. Clinical data of patients with mCRC who received FTD/TPI + Bev at the Cancer Institute Hospital between January 2017 and August 2020 were retrospectively collected. Disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety were assessed. In addition, subgroup analyses of prognostic and predictive efficacy markers were performed. In total, 94 patients (median age, 60.0 years; age range, 32–82 years; 37 men and 57 women) were included in the present study. The DCR was 44.7%, the median PFS time was 2.9 months (2.3–4.1 months) and the median OS time was 10.0 months (7.3–11.1 months). Grade 3 or 4 CIN within the first cycle of treatment occurred in 27.7% of patients, which was significantly associated with a longer PFS time than those who did not develop CIN [3.8 months (2.3–8.4 months) vs. 2.7 months (1.8–4.0 months); P=0.008]. Furthermore, the DCR was higher in patients with grade 3 or 4 CIN within the first cycle of treatment than those without CIN (61.5 vs. 38.2%; P=0.07). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that grade 3 or 4 CIN within the first cycle of treatment are independent predictors for a longer PFS time (P=0.01). Taken together, the results of the present study suggest that grade 3 or 4 CIN within the first cycle of treatment are early predictors of the efficacy of FTD/TPI + Bev.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil and Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study at a Tertiary Oncology Center

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib prolong survival for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); limited comparative effectiveness data exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with mCRC who initiated FTD/TPI or regorafenib (index therapy) between 2012 and 2017 at a U.S. tertiary oncology center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, was conducted. Using best tumor response assessments, real-world overall response rates (rwORR) and disease control rates (rwDCR) were described and analyzed using logistic regression. Survival rate was examined for each month after index therapy using Kaplan-Meier. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Subgroup analyses among patients with index therapy as second- or third-line were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-six and 95 patients were treated with FTD/TPI or regorafenib as index therapy, respectively. Patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib had a better response (rwORR 52.5% vs. 34.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.6; all p value <.05; rwDCR 64.2% vs. 46.1%; adjusted OR = 2.5; all p value <.05). Similar findings were observed for FTD/TPI versus regorafenib as second- or third-line therapy (rwORR 54.8% vs. 25.9%; adjusted OR = 4.1; all p value <.05; rwDCR 69.0% vs. 37.0%; adjusted OR = 4.9; all p value <.05). A greater proportion of patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib survived at 3 months (86.2% vs. 73.4%; p value = .016) and 4 months (79.6% vs. 65.8%; p value = .017). Adjusted OS hazard ratio for FTD/TPI versus regorafenib was 0.80, p value = .157.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with FTD/TPI had better tumor response and disease control than patients treated with regorafenib. Subgroup analysis in second- or third-line suggests that early use of FTD/TPI may have clinical benefits.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) were significantly less likely than those treated with regorafenib to have dose modifications and more likely to have higher real-world objective response rate (rwORR) and real-world disease control rate (rwDCR) while treated. Patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib had significantly higher odds of having rwORR or rwDCR in adjusted analyses. Monthly survival rates were higher overall in patients treated with FTD/TPI versus regorafenib in the first 6 months of follow-up, particularly at months 3 and 4. This study offers insight into patients' treatment experience in real-world clinical settings.

Preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer are the small tumor burden, slow growth and poor/scanty spread

Given the unclear preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), this study aimed to construct an algorithm in selecting right patients for regorafenib. This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with pathology confirmed mCRC and administered with regorafenib for > 3 weeks were enrolled. Patients with good response were defined to have progression-free survival (PFS) of ≥ 4 months. The Kaplan–Meier plot was used to analyze survival. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze univariate and multivariate prognostic factors and was visualized using forest plot. A clustering heatmap was used to classify patients according to responses. The decision tree and nomogram were used to construct the approaching algorithm. A total of 613 patients was analyzed. The median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 2.7 and 10.6 months, respectively. The partial response and stable disease rate are 2.4% and 36.4%. The interval between metastasis (M1) and regorafenib, metastatic status (number, liver, and brain), and CEA level were independent prognostics factors of PFS that classifies patients into three groups: good, bad and modest-1/modest-2 group with PFS >  = 4 months rates of 51%, 20%, 39% and 30%, respectively. Results were used to develop the decision tree and nomogram for approaching patients indicated with regorafenib. The preference criteria for regorafenib in treating patients with refractory mCRC are small tumor burden (CEA), slow growth (interval between metastasis and regorafenib) and poor/scanty spread (metastatic status: number and sites of metastasis): The 3S rules.

TRIAL registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03829852; Date of first registration (February 11, 2019).

Selection of Oral Therapeutics in China for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Intravenous administration of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the backbone of treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC) for decades. The availability of oral capecitabine has improved the tolerability and simplified combination schedules. In addition to capecitabine, several other oral drugs have proven efficacy, particularly in palliative treatment lines. Clinical guidelines describe several available third-line treatment options for metastatic CRC (mCRC), but few insights are provided to guide the selection and sequence. In this review, we describe the available evidence and most recent data concerning oral drugs with proven efficacy in CRC, including antiangiogenetic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR TKIs), inhibitors blocking EGFR/Raf/MEK/ERK signaling pathway and modified fluoropyrimidine, and share recommendations and insights on selecting third-line oral therapies for mCRC in China. In general, third-line treatment options for mCRC are mainly regorafenib, fruquintinib, and chemo/targeted therapy reintroduction, while FTD/TPI was rarely used in China probably due to poor accessibility. Fruquintinib is preferred in patients with poor performance status (PS), elder age, and severe organ dysfunction, compared to regorafenib. New drugs of clinical trials were more recommended for the patients with BRAF mutant tumor, and those with good previous treatment efficacy tended to be recommended for chemo/targeted therapy reintroduction. The management of mCRC is evolving, and it must be emphasized that the consideration and recommendations presented here reflect current treatment practices in China and thus might change according to new clinical data as well as the availability of new oral drugs.

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib monotherapy for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

Background:

The C-TASK-FORCE phase I/II and Danish randomized phase II trials reported the promising efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) plus bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there had been no direct comparative phase III trial to compare the efficacy between TAS102 plus BEV and standard therapy with either TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with mCRC who received TAS102 plus BEV, TAS102 monotherapy, or regorafenib monotherapy after standard chemotherapies during 2013–2019.

Results:

Patients received TAS102 plus BEV (n = 139), TAS102 monotherapy (n = 153), or regorafenib monotherapy (n = 133). With a median follow-up of 25.3 months, median overall survival (OS) was 11.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.9–13.9] for TAS102 plus BEV, 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.8–9.2) for TAS102 monotherapy, and 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7–8.5) for regorafenib monotherapy. The hazard ratios were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51–0.88) for TAS102 plus BEV versus TAS102 monotherapy and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.54–0.94) for TAS102 plus BEV versus regorafenib monotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7–5.4) for TAS102 plus BEV, 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.6–2.3) for TAS102 monotherapy, and 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.6–2.3) for regorafenib monotherapy. The hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.45–0.73) for TAS102 plus BEV versus TAS102 monotherapy and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.34–0.58) for TAS102 plus BEV versus regorafenib monotherapy. On multivariate analysis, TAS102 plus BEV was independently correlated with better OS and PFS. No unexpected adverse events were observed in any group.

Conclusion:

Our study shows that OS and PFS are longer in patients treated with TAS102 plus BEV than in those treated with TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy.

Sequenced treatment after regorafenib and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: a qualitative clinical review

There is limited evidence-based guidance regarding treatment sequencing and outcomes following regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A targeted literature review was conducted to identify studies with clinical outcomes associated with regorafenib therapy and subsequent treatment following regorafenib therapy. The median overall survival range of the nine studies with sequenced-based survival data was 2.1–19.3 months for regorafenib prior to subsequent therapy in refractory mCRC. Safety outcomes in patients treated with regorafenib prior to other therapies in mCRC were generally comparable to reported adverse events in clinical trials for subsequent agents. Data from this review demonstrate a potential correlation between survival and the use of regorafenib prior to subsequent chemotherapy or targeted therapy in patients with refractory mCRC.

A meta-analysis comparing regorafenib with TAS-102 for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective

We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and toxicity of regorafenib and TAS-102.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer using pooled analyses.

Results

Three clinical trials were included in this analysis. Regarding the reasons for treatment discontinuation, regorafenib was significantly associated with disease progression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21–0.50) and adverse events (OR = 4.38, 95% CI = 2.69–7.13). However, overall (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.81–1.17) and progression-free survival (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.86–1.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the regorafenib group were neutropenia (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03–0.11), hand–foot syndrome (OR = 50.34, 95% CI = 10.44–242.84), and liver dysfunction (OR = 34.51, 95% CI = 8.30–143.43). Conversely, the incidence of thrombocytopenia did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusions

Regorafenib and TAS-102 have similar efficacy but different adverse event profiles. Differences in the toxicity profiles of the two drugs will help guide treatment selection.

Trifluridine/tipiracil: A practical guide to its use in the management of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia

Trifluridine/tipiracil is available on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. This article reviews trifluridine/tipiracil clinical data and presents practical information on its use in the management of refractory mCRC in Australia. Whereas the primary mechanism of action of fluoropyrimidines such as fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine is enzyme inhibition of nucleotide synthesis, trifluridine/tipiracil primarily acts by incorporation into DNA, resulting in DNA dysfunction. Trifluridine/tipiracil has activity in patients with 5-FU-resistant tumors and can be considered in patients with prior intolerance or toxicity to 5-FU. In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial evaluating trifluridine/tipiracil in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, efficacy benefits were observed across all a priori prognostic subgroups including those defined by age (≥65 and ≥75 years), geographical origin, primary tumor site or KRAS status. Trifluridine/tipiracil therapy benefits appropriately selected patients who have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, with no more than mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-moderate renal impairment, and who are capable of adhering to oral therapy safely. Appropriate dosing, monitoring for adverse events and effective management of side effects are essential.

Impact of tumour growth rate during preceding treatment on tumour response to regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Although regorafenib (REG) and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) have been recognised as standard treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the best option remains unclear. Pretreatment tumour growth rate (TGR) is associated with radiotherapeutic efficacy in laryngeal cancer. However, no reports are available on the association between TGR during preceding treatment and the efficacy of REG or FTD/TPI.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analysed the data of consecutive mCRC patients treated with REG or FTD/TPI and classified them into slow-growing or rapid-growing (SG or RG) groups according to TGR and emergence of new lesion (NL+) or their absence (NL−) during preceding treatment period [SG: NL− with low TGR (<0.33%/day); RG: NL+ or high TGR (≥0.33%/day)].

Results

A total of 244 patients (RG/SG, 133/111; REG/FTD/TPI, 132/112) were eligible. The RG proportion with a long duration from first-line chemotherapy and the SG proportion with elevated alkaline phosphatase were higher in REG, whereas the SG proportion with performance status 2 was higher in FTD/TPI. The disease control rates (DCRs) were similar between REG and FTD/TPI (24%/30%; OR: 0.74; p=0.44; adjusted OR: 0.73; p=0.47) in the RG, whereas the DCR was significantly higher for FTD/TPI than for REG (47%/26%; OR: 2.56; p=0.029; adjusted OR: 3.38; p=0.01) in the SG.

Conclusions

TGR and NL during preceding treatment may be helpful for drug selection in refractory mCRC patients to be treated with REG or FTD/TPI. However, further studies are needed to confirm the value of TGR for drug selection.

Different Toxicity Profiles Predict Third Line Treatment Efficacy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

The nucleoside trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib significantly improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC). Both treatments are characterized by different treatment-related adverse events but detailed analyses of predictive side effects are rare. In this retrospective, observational, real-life study, clinical data on mCRC patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria and the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland were collected. The correlation between adverse events and response or survival rates were calculated performing Fisher’s exact test and log-rank test, respectively. Common adverse events of any grade included fatigue (52%), nausea/vertigo (34%), anemia (26%), and leukopenia (22%) in trifluridine/tipiracil patients and fatigue (42%), hand-foot-skin syndrome (36%) and hoarseness (34%) in patients upon regorafenib treatment. In trifluridine/tipiracil patients the prevalence of leukopenia (p = 0.044) and weight loss (p = 0.044) was prognostic, whereas leukopenia (p = 0.044) and neutropenia (p = 0.043) predicted PFS. The disease control rate was not significantly affected. In regorafenib-treated patients, the prevalence of nausea (p = 0.001) was prognostic, while oral mucositis predicted PFS (p = 0.032) as well as the DCR (p = 0.039). In conclusion, we underline the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in the real-life setting. We describe predictive adverse events like neutropenia/leukopenia, which might be used as surrogate marker in anticancer therapy beyond second line treatment.

Is There an Optimal Choice in Refractory Colorectal Cancer? A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, the present network meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy of 4 therapeutic alternatives for refractory colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search focused on results from phase III randomized controlled trials. Separate (subgroup) network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain drug comparisons stratified by various patient characteristics. The principal outcome of interest was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

No difference in OS was found between regorafenib and TAS-102. For a rectal primary location, TAS-102 conferred benefit versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.671), but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.950). For patients aged > 65 years, TAS-102 showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.579) but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.816). For patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 in the indirect comparison, regorafenib showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.687), as did TAS-102 (HR, 0.756) but with a lower advantage. For patients with RAS wild type not previously treated with anti-EGFR antibodies, panitumumab was the optimal choice for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in OS were found between regorafenib and TAS-102. Possible greater efficacy was found for TAS-102 compared with regorafenib for patients with a rectal primary location, ECOG PS > 0, and age > 65 years. In contrast, regorafenib showed possible greater effectiveness for patients with ECOG PS 0 and age < 65 years. In the RAS WT population, the anti-EGFR drug showed superiority with respect to TAS-102 and regorafenib. These results should be viewed as only exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to validate these data.

Comparing Late-line Treatment Sequence of Regorafenib and Reduced-intensity FOLFOXIRI for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Both regorafenib and reduced-intensity FOLFOXIRI (riFOLFOXIRI) prolong survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the sequence in which they should be administrated first in late-line treatment for refractory mCRC remains unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective cohort study that reviewed data from patients at Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, with mCRC refractory to fluorouracil, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, cetuximab (wild-type RAS), and bevacizumab. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a regorafenib-first group and a riFOLFOXIRI-first group. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to analyze survival, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate, multivariate, and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 136 and 55 patients followed a regorafenib-first or riFOLFOXIRI-first treatment strategy, respectively. At baseline, patient characteristics were similar between the groups, except for younger age in the riFOLFOXIRI-first group. The regorafenib-first group had better overall survival (13.8 vs. 10.7 mo, P=0.038), whereas patients in the riFOLFOXIRI-first group had a better partial response rate (P=0.005) but a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse effects (P=0.004) and cross-over to regorafenib (P<0.001). Thus, no significant difference was observed in progression-free survival (regorafenib-first strategy: 3.17 mo; riFOLFOXIRI-first strategy: 4.97 mo; P=0.624). Regorafenib-first strategy, sex, and pathology were identified as independent prognostic factors. Subgroup analysis indicated that younger age, better performance status, stage IV disease, and mutant RAS gene favored the regorafenib-first strategy.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with regorafenib-first followed by riFOLFOXIRI resulted in better overall survival when given as late-line treatment for patients with refractory mCRC.

Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma after Second Progression and the Role of Trifluridine-Tipiracil (TAS-102) in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) is one of the most prevalent types of cancer worldwide. After tumor progression with first- and second-line treatment, trifluridine (FTD) and tipiracil (TPI) has been shown to be a treatment option.

SUMMARY

Data from a pivotal phase 3 trial (RECOURSE) and an ongoing phase 3b trial (PRECONNECT) have shown that, in mCRC patients who experienced disease progression after 2 lines of standard therapy, treatment with FTD/TPI is safe and efficacious. Other third-line options include regorafenib, rechallenge with previous treatment lines or personalized approaches based on comprehensive molecular profiling. Randomized trials or sequential studies aiming for the right treatment sequence or predefined subtypes for FTD/TPI or regorafenib as well for rechallenge are missing. However, FTD/TPI as well as regorafenib are recommended by the current ESMO, German S3, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines in the same situation, thus offering physicians a number of alternatives for the treatment of mCRC patients after the second progression. Key Message: This narrative review summarizes published data and their impact for FTD/TPI as well for regorafenib and rechallenge chemotherapy in clinical practice settings of refractory situations of colorectal cancer.

Comparison of Standard Initial Dose and Reduced Initial Dose Regorafenib for Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The benefit of regorafenib for colorectal cancer patients was demonstrated in previous randomized studies. However, these studies showed a high rate of treatment-related adverse events, and adverse events were more common in Japanese patients. Some studies showed fewer adverse events and a longer survival time with a reduced initial dose. However, the benefits of a reduced initial dose of regorafenib have only been evaluated in small samples.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to analyze the efficacy of initial regorafenib dose reduction compared with a standard dose for colorectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a hospital-based nationwide claims database. Patients who received regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer between June 2013 and July 2017 were included in this study. We divided the patients into a standard initial dose group (standard group) and a reduced initial dose group (reduced group). Overall survival (OS) and adverse events were compared between the two groups. We performed propensity score matching for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

We included 2376 patients (1208 in the standard group and 1168 in the reduced group). The median OS was 12.3 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 11.0-13.3) in the standard group and 12.6 months (95% CI: 11.7-13.6) in the reduced group. A log-rank test showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.41). Most adverse events occurred less frequently in the reduced group. In the sensitivity analysis, there was no significant difference for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was observed for OS between the standard group and the reduced group. However, there were fewer adverse events in the reduced group. The optimal initial dose of regorafenib should be identified in further studies.

Review of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment pathways and early clinical experience of trifluridine/tipiracil in the UK named patient programme

BACKGROUND

The standard first- and second- line chemotherapy backbone regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based with addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Until recently, evidence for optimal sequencing post second-line was sparse. Trifluridine/tipiracil (indicated for mCRC and gastric cancer after standard chemotherapies) was made available to UK patients via a named patient programme (NPP) before receiving marketing authorisation in Europe in 2016, allowing characterisation of UK treatment pathways, and evaluation of trifluridine/tipiracil in a UK non-trial population.

METHODS

Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s).

RESULTS

Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0-69.0) and 62.0 (54.8-69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8-2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.

Regorafenib, TAS-102, or fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer: any difference in randomized trials?

PURPOSE

Direct randomized comparisons of regorafenib, TAS-102, and fruquintinib for treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are lacking. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of three agents by a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We included phase III randomized controlled trials in the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry from initiation until January 2019. Data from randomized controlled trials including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Direct meta-analysis and indirect meta-analysis using network meta-analysis were assessed.

RESULTS

Five trials comprising a total of 2586 patients were included. For efficacy analysis of OS, no statistically significant differences were observed between regorafenib and TAS-102 (HR 0.945, 95% CI [0.677, 1.320], P = 0.753), regorafenib and fruquintinib (HR 1.056, 95% CI [0.690, 1.621], P = 0.814), or TAS-102 and fruquintinib (HR 1.117, 95% CI [0.740, 1.685], P = 0.610). However, fruquintinib was superior in PFS compared with TAS-102 (HR 1.756, 95% CI [1.079, 2.857], P = 0.023). Regorafenib and TAS-102 appeared to have a similar effect on PFS (HR 0.907, 95% CI [0.611, 1.346], P = 0.641), as did regorafenib and fruquintinib (HR 1.592, 95% CI [0.968, 2.618], P = 0.067). None of the three agents were better in terms of all grade AEs or any grade of 3-5 AEs. However, subgroup analysis of AEs exhibited different toxicity profiles between the three drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect comparison suggested that the three agents had similar OS but that fruquintinib was superior in terms of PFS compared with that of TAS-102. These three agents had different toxicity profiles.

Real-World Adherence in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Trifluridine plus Tipiracil or Regorafenib

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine and tipiracil (FTD + TPI) and regorafenib (REG) are approved treatments for the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study assesses adherence and duration of therapy with FTD + TPI versus REG and explores the effect of sequencing on adherence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults diagnosed with mCRC were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims: U.S. database (October 2014-July 2017). The observation period spanned from the index date (first dispensing of FTD + TPI or REG) to the earliest of a switch to another mCRC agent, the end of continuous enrollment, or the end of data availability. Medication possession ratio (MPR), proportion of days covered (PDC), and persistence and time to discontinuation (gap ≥45 days) were compared between FTD + TPI and REG users and among switchers (FTD + TPI-to-REG vs. REG-to-FTD + TPI).

RESULTS

A total of 469 FTD + TPI and 311 REG users were identified. FTD + TPI users had higher compliance with an MPR ≥80% (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; p < .001) and PDC ≥80% (OR, 2.77; p < .001). FTD + TPI users had better persistence (82.8% vs. 68.0%; p < .001) and lower risk of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; p = .006). Among switchers (96 FTD + TPI-to-REG; 83 REG-to-FTD + TPI), those switching from FTD + TPI to REG were more likely to have an MPR ≥80% (OR, 2.91; p < .001) and PDC ≥80% (OR, 4.60; p < .001) compared with REG-to-FTD + TPI switchers while treated with these drugs. Additionally, FTD + TPI-to-REG switchers had a lower risk of first treatment discontinuation (HR, 0.66; p = .009).

CONCLUSION

FTD + TPI users had significantly higher adherence and persistence, and patients who were treated with FTD + TPI before switching to REG also had higher adherence and persistence outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Trifluridine plus tipiracil (FTD + TPI) and regorafenib (REG) prolong survival in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but have different tolerability profiles. This study assessed real-world adherence to treatment with FTD + TPI versus REG and compared outcomes among patients who switched from FTD + TPI to REG and vice versa. FTD + TPI was associated with significantly higher medication adherence and longer time to discontinuation than REG. Patients treated with FTD + TPI prior to switching to REG also showed higher adherence outcomes. Findings could help inform decision making regarding the choice and sequencing of treatment with FTD + TPI versus REG in patients with mCRC.

Prognostic scores for evaluating the survival benefit of regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an exploratory analysis of the REGOTAS study

BACKGROUND

Although regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has been recognized as a later-line standard treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), not all patients have beneficial outcomes. This study aimed to develop a prognostic scoring system for evaluating the overall survival (OS) benefit.

METHODS

Patients included in the REGOTAS study, which comprised 489 patients (regorafenib group: 199; FTD/TPI group: 290 patients), were evaluated. OS was analyzed using multivariate Cox proportional model. The prognostic score was calculated using the worst four individual factors weighted by hazard ratio, and the total scores were categorized as low-, moderate-, and high-OS benefit.

RESULTS

The worst four factors in the regorafenib group were AST > 40 IU/dL (point, + 3), CRP ≥ 1.0 mg/dL (+ 2), number of metastatic organ site ≥ 3 (+ 2), and duration from initiation of 1st-line chemotherapy < 18 months (+ 2), while they were AST (+ 2), CRP (+ 2), CA19-9 > 37.0 U/mL (+ 2), and ECOG PS ≥ 1 (+ 2) in the FTD/TPI group. These corresponded to a total prognostic score of > 5, 2-4, and 0 points in the regorafenib group and 8, 2-6, and 0 points in the FTD/TPI group. The median OS in the low, moderate, and high OS benefit group was 3.3 (95% CI 3.0-3.7), 8.1 (95% CI 6.4-9.7), and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.6-14.6) in the regorafenib group and 2.8 (95% CI 2.0-3.5), 7.5 (95% CI 6.6-8.3), and 15.4 months (95% CI 9.7-21.2) in the FTD/TPI group.

CONCLUSION

These prognostic scores are useful for identifying patients with mCRC who will obtain survival benefits from these drugs.

A systematic review of observational studies of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) for metastatic colorectal cancer

Background: The treatment options for patients with therapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are sparse. TAS-102 (FTD/TPI) is a new oral anti-tumour agent composed of a nucleoside analogue, trifluridine, and a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor, tipiracil, indicated for patients with mCRC who are refractory to standard therapies. This study summarizes published and unpublished experience with FTD/TPI in clinical practice settings. Patients and methods: The Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify observational studies on FTD/TPI monotherapy for mCRC. Papers describing use of FTD/TPI monotherapy outside clinical trials in series of patients evaluable for effectiveness were eligible. The outcomes of interest were median progression free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) as well as mean PFS time restricted to six months (PFS_6m) and mean OS time restricted to one year (OS_1y). Results of the pooled analyses of observational studies were compared to the results of the Japanese phase II trial and the two phase III trials, RECOURSE and TERRA. Results: Seven published and two unpublished studies with 1008 patients from 64 centres were included for analysis. The pooled mPFS was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.3 months), and the pooled mOS was 6.6 months (95% CI 6.1 to 7.1 months). PFS_6m was 2.9 months (95% CI 2.6 to 3.1 months) and OS_1y was 6.8 (95% CI 6.0 to 7.5) months. While these results all reflect RECOURSE, the pooled mOS is lower than in the phase II trial and the OS_1y is inferior to both the phase II trial and TERRA. Conclusion: This systematic review and a meta-analysis indicates that in real life settings, the survival benefit of FTD/TPI monotherapy in patients with therapy refractory mCRC reflects the outcomes in RECOURSE but is inferior to outcomes in the two Asian efficacy trials. What is already known TAS 102 (Lonsurf) is an oral fixed dose combination of trifluridine (FTD) and tipiracil (TPI) indicated as salvage-line treatment in patients with therapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A Japanese phase II trial and two phase III trials, RECOURSE and TERRA, demonstrated that FTD/TPI prolonged overall survival. What this study adds This systematic review and meta-analysis of real life data from 64 sites indicates that the effectiveness in daily clinical practice settings of FTD/TPI monotherapy in late stage mCRC reflects the outcomes in RECOURCE but is inferior to the outcomes in the Japanese phase II trial and TERRA.

Regorafenib: A Review in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Regorafenib (Stivarga^®) is an oral small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. It is indicated worldwide for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the EU and USA it is indicated for patients with mCRC who have been previously treated with, or are not considered candidates for available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild-type, an anti-EGFR therapy. In Japan, it is indicated for the treatment of unresectable, advanced/recurrent CRC. The addition of regorafenib to best supportive care prolonged median overall survival (OS; by up to 2.5 months) and progression-free survival (PFS; by up to 1.5 months) relative to the addition of placebo in double-blind phase 3 studies (CORRECT and CONCUR) in patients with mCRC who had progressed after failure of standard therapy. Health-related quality of life was not adversely affected with regorafenib relative to placebo. A large open-label phase 3 study (CONSIGN) and several large real-world studies supported the efficacy of regorafenib in this setting. Regorafenib had a generally manageable tolerability profile, which was consistent with the profile of a typical small-molecule multiple kinase inhibitor. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs), mostly of mild or moderate severity, were reported in the majority of patients receiving regorafenib, with dermatological toxicities and liver enzyme elevations among the most common AEs. Although identification of biomarkers/parameters predicting efficacy outcomes with regorafenib will help to individualize therapy, current evidence indicates that regorafenib is a valuable treatment option for patients with refractory mCRC who have a very poor prognosis.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

AIM

To investigate treatment patterns and outcomes of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients beyond second progression (PD2) since regorafenib and TAS-102 became available in Hong Kong.

METHODS

The clinical records of consecutive mCRC patients who were treated beyond PD2 at Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Mary Hospital between June 2013 and February 2018, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Of 176 PD2 patients (76.7% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 and a median follow-up time of 6.6 [range, 0.4-37.2] months), 104 (59%) underwent palliative care only and 72 (41%) received active third-line (3L) treatment: regorafenib (n = 22), TAS-102 (n = 6), chemotherapy + antiepidermal growth factor receptor (n = 12), chemotherapy + antivascular endothelial growth factor (n = 28) or clinical trials (n = 4). Patients on active 3L treatment had significantly longer OS than those on palliative care only: 11.7 versus 5.5 months (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.61, P < 0.001). For those on active treatment, OS was significantly associated with the time from diagnosis of metastasis to PD2 (P < 0.001) and post-3L treatments (P = 0.009). When analyzing treatment eligibility according to trial criteria, half of the eligible patients (54/109) did not receive active treatment, but both eligible and ineligible patients achieved better OS when receiving active 3L treatment versus palliative care only (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002). No unexpected toxicity was reported.

CONCLUSION

Active 3L and beyond treatment significantly prolonged OS versus palliative care, even in selected "trial ineligible" patients. Given a high rate of palliation only care in eligible patients, improved patient access to medicine and counseling may be needed to maximize outcomes.

Retrospective study of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil efficacy as a third-line or later chemotherapy regimen for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) are novel antitumor agents for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear which patients may derive a survival benefit from these drugs in real-life clinical practice. We evaluated retrospectively the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 at a single institution between June 2013 and November 2015. Cox regression analysis was carried out to obtain predictive scores (the nearest integers of hazard ratio) for survival benefit. Forty-four patients treated with regorafenib or TAS-102 were included in the analysis; among them, 17 received crossover treatment. The median overall survival (OS) was 9.1 months for regorafenib and 9.3 months for TAS-102, and the corresponding values after crossover were 7.1 and 5.3 months, respectively. OS was not correlated to relative dose intensity, but was proportional to the total administered dose of each drug. Adverse events were tolerable even after crossover. We identified three variables as significant for prediction of OS with good discrimination (C-statistic=0.70): Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time since diagnosis of metastatic disease ≤18 months, and previous chemotherapy continued ≥2 months beyond progression were all predictors of poor OS. Regorafenib and TAS-102 can be recommended for patients with better performance status and slow progression of metastatic disease. Optimal survival benefit was provided by prompt administration of either drug after failure of previous chemotherapy, with flexible titration to the optimal dose for each individual patient.

Effective Sequential Combined Chemotherapy with Trifluridine/Tipiracil and Regorafenib in Human Colorectal Cancer Cells

Salvage chemotherapy for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer using trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib has shown survival benefits. We evaluated the antitumor effects of FTD or FTD/TPI combined with regorafenib in vitro and in vivo. SW620, HCT 116, and HT-29 human colorectal cancer cell lines were treated with FTD and regorafenib simultaneously and sequentially. Cell death, incorporation of FTD into DNA, and molecules related to FTD and regorafenib-associated cell death were investigated. The antitumor effects of FTD combined with regorafenib in SW620 and COLO205 xenografts were also evaluated. Cell death was greater after sequential treatment with FTD followed by regorafenib in SW620 cells, but not in HCT 116 and HT-29 cells, than after treatment with FTD alone, which was attributable to thymidylate synthase reduction with the induction of apoptosis. In contrast, simultaneous and sequential exposure to regorafenib followed by FTD, but not FTD alone, attenuated the cell death effect. Furthermore, combined FTD/TPI treatment followed by regorafenib had greater antitumor activity than either monotherapy in SW620 and COLO205 xenograft models. Treatment results following regorafenib administration subsequent to FTD or FTD/TPI suggest that sequential therapy with FTD/TPI prior to regorafenib may be effective in a clinical setting.

Efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

TAS-102 has been applied to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who had received at least two prior regimens of standard chemotherapy. This meta-analysis is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in patients with mCRC.

Methods

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane clinical trial databases and clinicaltrial.gov from database initiation to March 2018. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR) and incidence of adverse events were summarized with the use of hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR).

Results

Three RCTs with 1318 patients were included. Results showed that TAS-102 significantly improved OS (HR 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.79) and PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40-0.52) in patients who were intolerant or refractory to fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. The pooled odds ratio of DCR was 4.15 (95% CI 3.18-5.43). Notably, there were significant OS benefits both in patients with KRAS mutation (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92) and those with wild-type KRAS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.79). These benefits were also observed in patients with different numbers of metastatic sites. However, patients with >18 months since the diagnosis of first metastases seemed to have better OS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55-0.77). The most common toxicities associated with TAS-102 were neutropenia (RR 116.51, 95% CI 23.51-577.33), leucopenia (RR 67.70, 95% CI 13.63-336.29), anemia (RR 4.28, 95% CI 2.70-6.79) and diarrhea (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.40-18.61).

Conclusion

TAS-102 significantly improves OS, PFS and DCR in refractory mCRC patients with tolerable toxicity. Meanwhile, the OS benefits have nothing to do with KRAS status and the number of metastatic sites.

Trifluridine/tipiracil: an emerging strategy for the management of gastrointestinal cancers

Fluoropyrimidines are currently the backbone of treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers but development of resistance to these agents remains a major problem. Trifluridine/tipiracil is an oral chemotherapeutic agent recently approved for third-line treatment of chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This article reviews the clinical value of trifluridine/tipiracil as a monotherapy, including recent trials in GI cancers, and the potential benefit of combining it with other agents in patients with GI cancers, including the preclinical rationale for combination therapy and recently completed and ongoing clinical trials. Data gathered so far suggest that trifluridine/tipiracil has the potential to form the chemotherapeutic backbone in the continuum of care for GI cancers in the future.

Optimizing Treatment Sequence for Late-line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Using Trifluridine/Tipiracil and Regorafenib

BACKGROUND

Treatment sequencing for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been highly debated. The thymidine-based nucleoside trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib have demonstrated clinical benefits in randomized phase III trials compared with placebo. However, limited data are available on the most optimal therapy sequence involving TAS-102 and regorafenib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the present retrospective, observational, real-life study, clinical data on mCRC patients treated with TAS-102 or an alternative salvage treatment at the Medical University of Vienna and University Hospital Zurich were collected from January 2013 to December 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients whose disease had progressed during fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (FBT) with or without an antibody were included. The disease control rate in patients treated with TAS-102 after FBT-based treatment was 24% compared with 35% in patients treated with regorafenib after FBT-based treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-7.47; P = .449). The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients treated with TAS-102 was 2.8 months (quartile, 2.0-4.8 months) and 15.9 months, respectively. When the data were analyzed according to the subgroups of patients with or without an FBT-free period, the TAS-102-treated patients with a previous FBT-free interval had a PFS of 3.1 months and OS of 17.7 months compared with a PFS of 2.2 months and OS of 8.1 months for patients who received TAS-102 immediately after FBT.

CONCLUSION

Our results have confirmed the efficacy of TAS-102 and regorafenib in the real-life setting. The treatment sequence analysis showed a tendency for longer PFS and OS for TAS-102-treated patients after an FBT-free interval. Prospective randomized data are needed to gain more information about the most beneficial therapy sequence in the salvage treatment of mCRC.

A Comparison of Regorafenib and TAS-102 for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Regorafenib and TAS-102 have shown to be superior to placebo in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. However, no studies have directly compared both drugs. Giving the lack of standard options in this scenario, a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 was performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify published and unpublished studies up to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, involving regorafenib or TAS-102, was performed. Data including overall survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity were extracted. Pairwise direct meta-analyses (regorafenib vs. placebo and TAS-102 vs. placebo) and indirect comparison (regorafenib vs. TAS-102) using network meta-analyses methods to preserve randomization were performed using random effects.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials fulfilled eligibility criteria (regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer [CORRECT]: an international, multicentre, randomised, pacebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, 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, and randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer [RECOURSE] trials) involving 1764 patients (regorafenib, 641; TAS-102, 534; placebo, 589). Subgroups of patients (1659) who had not received prior regorafenib or TAS-102 were used to perform meta-analyses for efficacy. In the indirect comparison, no statistically significant differences were observed between regorafenib and TAS-102 in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.66; P = .91) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.40-1.81; P = .67). However, regorafenib has statistically more all grade any toxicity (risk difference, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.25-0.38; P = .001) compared with TAS-102. Subgroup analysis of adverse events showed a different toxicity profile between both drugs.

CONCLUSION

In this indirect comparison, regorafenib and TAS-102 appeared to have similar efficacy. However, regorafenib was associated with more toxicity compared with TAS-102.

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.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Despite advances in the treatment of colorectal cancer, third-line treatment options are still limited. Regorafenib was approved in 2012 for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with approved standard therapy. The purpose of this review is to present existing clinical data on regorafenib.

METHOD

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases, as well as ASCO and ESMO conference abstracts, for studies in English including ≥30 patients, evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis was conducted on the published, randomized phase III trials.

RESULTS

24 eligible studies were included. In two phase III trials, regorafenib significantly increased overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and disease control rate when compared to placebo. Survival benefits of 1.4 and 2.5 months were presented. The meta-analysis indicated a significant greater treatment effect on OS (hazard ratio 0.67) and PFS (hazard ratio 0.40), compared to placebo. The non-randomized studies mostly supported these results. The most frequently reported adverse events were hand-foot-skin reaction (25%-86%), hypertension (11%-47%) and fatigue (2%-73%).

CONCLUSION

Large phase III randomized trials indicate that regorafenib provides a benefit in OS and PFS when compared to placebo. Adverse events were common, but manageable and typical of multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Further research is needed to investigate alternative approaches to the dosing of regorafenib and to explore clinical and molecular biomarkers that can guide patient selection.

Emerging combination therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer - impact of trifluridine/tipiracil

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are surviving longer now than ever before, but mortality rates are still high and more effective therapies are clearly needed. For patients with disease that is refractory to fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and biologic agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor pathways, novel treatment options trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and regorafenib can be effective disease stabilizers. However, objective clinical responses are rare and toxicities are manageable but common. In order to tackle poor clinical responses to TAS-102, there is an ongoing effort to effectively combine this drug with other agents, particularly those targeting angiogenesis. Certain subpopulations appear to benefit more than others from TAS-102; those that benefit often have underlying genetic defects in DNA repair pathways and/or develop neutropenia. In this review, we focus on the role of TAS-102 in the treatment of mCRC, including its use in combination with other agents, potential predictive biomarkers of response to TAS-102, and possible future directions.

Incidence and risk of hematologic toxicities in cancer patients treated with regorafenib

Regorafenib, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of several malignancies. As a non-traditional cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent, regorafenib is often associated with hematologic toxicities. Here we searched PubMed and Embase up to June 2017 for relevant clinical trials. Eligible studies include trials in which subjects treated with 160 mg of regorafenib daily during the first 21 days of each 28-day cycle, and adequate safety data profile reporting thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia and leucopenia. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the overall incidences, relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 2,341 subjects from 16 trials were included in the present studies. The incidences of regorafenib associated all-grade and high-grade hematologic toxicities were: thrombocytopenia, 22% and 3%; anemia, 20% and 3%; neutropenia, 10% and 2%, and leucopenia, 13% and 2%, respectively. Regorafenib-treated subjects had a significant increased risk of all-grade (RR=6.35; 95% CI, 3.19-12.64) and high-grade (RR=6.27; 95% CI, 1.69-23.26) thrombocytopenia, all-grade (RR=2.76; 95% CI, 1.63-4.68) and high-grade (RR=5.38; 95% CI, 1.60-18.06) anemia. Our results suggested that regorafenib therapy was associated with significantly increased risks of hematological toxicities, and hematologic monitoring at regular intervals should be advised to clinician.