Efficacy and Safety of Regorafenib With 2/1 Schedule for Patients ≥ 75 Years With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) After Failure of 2 Lines of Chemotherapy

Updates on the Management of Colorectal Cancer in Older Adults

Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health challenge. Notably, the risk of CRC escalates with age, with the majority of cases occurring in those over the age of 65. Despite recent progress in tailoring treatments for early and advanced CRC, there is a lack of prospective data to guide the management of older patients, who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. This article reviews the contemporary landscape of managing older individuals with CRC, highlighting recent advancements and persisting challenges. The role of comprehensive geriatric assessment is explored. Opportunities for treatment escalation/de-escalation, with consideration of the older adult's fitness level. are reviewed in the neoadjuvant, surgical, adjuvant, and metastatic settings of colon and rectal cancers. Immunotherapy is shown to be an effective treatment option in older adults who have CRC with microsatellite instability. Promising new technologies such as circulating tumor DNA and recent phase III trials adding later-line systemic therapy options are discussed. Clinical recommendations based on the data available are summarized. We conclude that deliberate efforts to include older individuals in future colorectal cancer trials are essential to better guide the management of these patients in this rapidly evolving field.

Planned drug holidays during treatment with lenvatinib for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a retrospective study

Background

In the phase 3 SELECT study, lenvatinib significantly improved prognostic outcomes vs. placebo in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). However, toxicity of lenvatinib is sometimes considerable and requires frequent dose interruptions and modifications. Recently, planned drug holidays have been proposed as a means of avoiding severe adverse events (AEs).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed medical records to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in RR-DTC patients who underwent planned drug holidays (planned holiday group) vs. those who received conventional daily oral administration (daily group).

Results

The subjects were 25 patients in the planned holiday group and 21 in the daily group. Median age was 73 years (range 43-84) and 62 years (range 42-75), and histologic subtype of papillary/follicular was 21/4 cases and 15/6 cases, respectively. Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer in the planned holiday group than the daily group (not reached [NR] vs. 14.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.11-0.58, p<0.001; NR vs. 26.6 months, HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.073-0.58, p=0.001, respectively). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR in the planned holiday group vs. 15.1 months in the daily group (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.68, p=0.002). Duration of the period with lenvatinib dose ≥10 mg was significantly longer in the planned holiday group (NR vs. 6.5 months, HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.49, p<0.001), and the frequency of drug interruption due to intolerable AEs was lower (68.0% vs. 95.2%, p=0.027).

Conclusion

Planned drug holidays for lenvatinib demonstrated significantly longer PFS, TTF, and OS than daily oral administration, and less intolerable toxicity leading to further unplanned treatment interruption. These benefits were apparently associated with a more extended period of lenvatinib administration at ≥10 mg. These findings might contribute to a favorable patient prognosis and safer toxicity profile.

The Role of Targeted Therapy in the Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Colorectal Liver Metastasis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Among newly diagnosed patients with CRC, 20% will present with metastatic disease and another 25% will develop metastases. The surgical resection of the primary tumor and metastatic disease sites confers the best chance at long-term survival. Unfortunately, many patients will recur after resection or present with unresectable disease. As such, metastatic CRC is commonly treated with a combination of surgery, systemic therapy, and/or liver-directed therapies. Despite best efforts, 5-year survival for unresectable metastatic CRC is only about 20%. CRC is a heterogeneous disease and the underlying genetic differences inform behavior, treatment strategy, and prognosis. Given the limitations of cytotoxic chemotherapy and the growing role of molecular profiling, research has focused on identifying and developing targeted therapies. We herein review how genetic profiling informs prognosis, crucial cell-signaling pathways that play a role in CRC carcinogenesis, and currently approved targeted therapies for metastatic CRC.

Guidance for Treating the Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

The need for evidence-based data in the rapidly growing group of older patients is vast and more elderly-specific studies are desperately needed, for which there is clear demand from both patients and providers. Notably, many of the studies discussed in this review included unplanned subset analyses based on age and/or were not originally stratified by age; therefore, these data, particularly overall survival data, need to be interpreted with some caution as they may not be statistically valid based on the initial trial design and statistical plan. As we await data from ongoing elderly-specific trials, our recommendation for managing older patients with CRC should include geriatric screening tools (e.g., CSGA, VES-13, G8, CARG, CRASH) to help guide treatment adjustments for improved tolerability without sacrificing efficacy. For patients with a positive screen for significant geriatric concerns, a full geriatric assessment is recommended to guide treatment approach and supportive care. Prior data support the use of all approved medications for CRC in older adults who are fit; however, treatment breaks and dose attenuation with potential escalation are reasonable options for these patients. Ultimately, management decisions in the care of older adults with mCRC must be made through shared decision-making with the patient with consideration for the patient's functional status, comorbidities, goals of care, social support, as well as potential toxicities and possible effect on QoL.

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).

Efficacy and Safety of TACE Combined with Regorafenib versus TACE in the Third-Line Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

The liver is the most common site of metastasis in colorectal cancer. In patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases, the 5-year survival rate is less than 5%. Many patients with colorectal liver metastases require effective subsequent therapy after the failure of standard first-line/second-line therapy. The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with Regorafenib versus TACE in the third-line treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases.

METHOD

The clinical data of 132 patients with colorectal liver metastases were collected. There were two groups: TACE + Regorafenib group (N = 63); TACE group (N = 69). TACE uses CalliSpheres® drug-loaded microspheres (loaded with irinotecan). Regorafenib is administered at a dose of 120 mg once daily. If the patient is severely intolerable, the regorafenib dose is adjusted to 80 mg once daily. Primary study endpoints were (1) to evaluate the tumor response, ORR, and DCR and (2) to evaluate OS and PFS in the two groups. Secondary study endpoints were (1) to compare the performance status, CEA, CA19-9 after treatment between the two groups and (2) to compare the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in tumor response, ORR, DCR, OS, and PFS after treatment between the two groups. TACE combined with the Regorafenib group versus the TACE group: ORR (57.1% vs 33.3%), DCR (82.5% vs 68.1%), mOS (18.2 months vs 11.3 months), and mPFS (8.9 months vs 5.3 months). The performance status after treatment was better in the TACE + Regorafenib group than in the TACE group (P < 0.05). The CEA and CA19-9 negative rates after treatment were higher in the TACE + Regorafenib group than in the TACE group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For the third-line treatment of colorectal liver metastases, the combination of TACE + Regorafenib had better tumor response, OS, and PFS than TACE TACE + Regorafenib combination could be considered as salvage therapy for colorectal liver metastases who failed the first- and second-line standard therapy.

Modulation of autophagy: a Phase II study of vorinostat plus hydroxychloroquine versus regorafenib in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

BACKGROUND

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), regorafenib (RGF), a multi-kinase inhibitor with angiogenic inhibition has modest effects on survival. We reported that autophagy modulation using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), enhances the anticancer activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitor, vorinostat (VOR), in mCRC, is well tolerated, and has comparable activity to RGF. Thus, we conducted a prospective study of VOR/HCQ versus RGF in mCRC.

METHODS

This is a randomised, controlled trial of VOR 400 mg and HCQ 600 mg orally daily versus RGF 160 mg orally daily (3 weeks on/1 week off), every 4 weeks, in patients with mCRC.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

median progression-free survival (mPFS). Secondary endpoints: median overall survival (mOS); adverse events; pharmacodynamic analyses.

RESULTS

From 2/2015-10/2017, 42 patients were randomised to VOR/HCQ and RGF. Median age was 58.4 years. mPFS on VOR/HCQ was 1.9 months versus 4.35 months with RGF (P = 0.032). There was no difference in mOS (P = 0.9). Treatment was tolerated in both arms. In both arms, there was improved anti-tumour immunity.

CONCLUSIONS

VOR/HCQ had an inferior PFS when compared to RGF, although there was an increase in anti-tumour immunity in mCRC. VOR/HCQ has a favourable safety profile, and immune or tumour biomarkers may be used to identify clinical benefit of autophagy modulation in mCRC.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02316340.

Chemotherapy in older adults with gastrointestinal cancer:Current practices and future directions in Japan

Chemotherapy for cancer has significantly improved owing to the increasing number of effective chemotherapeutic agents and supportive care. Recently, the number of older cancer patients has rapidly increased owing to the aging of the global population. However, in most cases, it is difficult to treat those using similar dosages or schedules as that of younger patients because older patients generally have unfavorable factors, such as decreased performance status and physical and cognitive conditions, thus increasing the incidence of complications and side effects. Chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers has made significant progress in recent years with the introduction of molecular-targeted agents and immunotherapy. However, clinical trials showed limited evidence regarding the efficacy of chemotherapy in older cancer patients, accounting for half of all patients, making it difficult to develop a well-established treatment strategy. This review aimed to evaluate the current state of chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer in older adults. Furthermore, the limitations and future perspectives were discussed. J. Med. Invest. 69 : 25-30, February, 2022.

[Medical oncological treatment of colorectal cancer in the elderly]

Medical treatment with chemotherapy is discussed in several situations in the treatment of colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, chemotherapy with 5FU±oxaliplatin for six months should be considered in the case of lymph node involvement. In the metastatic setting, several protocols exist. The choice of treatments should be based on the expected objectives in terms of response and survival gain, but also of tolerance and quality of life for the patient. A thorough oncogeriatric assessment helps to better define the therapeutic programme. The continuation of geriatric follow-up throughout the treatment process shows a benefit for the patient in terms of quality of life and tolerance of treatments.

Management of Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma in Older Adults: Balancing Risks and Benefits of Novel Therapies

The prevalence of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) will continue to increase with our aging population. Treatment of mCRC has changed significantly in the last few decades as we have learned how to personalize the treatment of mCRC to the biology of the tumor, utilizing new treatment approaches. With an ever-changing treatment paradigm, managing the population of older adults becomes paramount. This review highlights the pivotal clinical trials that defined the use of systemic therapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies for mCRC, and how those are applied to the older patient population. In addition, we outline the tools for an in-depth assessment of an older adult in regards to treatment planning and management of therapy-related toxicities. A comprehensive geriatric assessment can assist in the selection of treatment for an older adult with mCRC. While frail older patients can frequently only tolerate single agents or modified regimens, fit older adults remain candidates for a wider range of treatment options. However, since all of these treatments are associated with possible toxicities, each patient's treatment must be personalized to the patient's goals and wishes through a shared decision-making process.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Intractable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background:

The treatment options for intractable metastatic colorectal cancer include regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib. In this study, we aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis for comparing the efficacy of these agents.

Methods:

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials databases for relevant literature, up to February 2020. The data were collected from randomized controlled trials on regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or fruquintinib, administered to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who failed on treatment with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or fluoropyrimidine. The primary end points, namely, the overall survival and progression-free survival, were analyzed for subsequent network analysis using the Review Manager and Aggregate Data Drug Information System software for performing direct and indirect comparisons.

Results:

A total of 7 trials were analyzed in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib proved to be superior to the placebo, with respect to the overall survival (odds ratio: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.52 for trifluridine/tipiracil; odds ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.84 for regorafenib) and progression-free survival (odds ratio: 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.67 for trifluridine/tipiracil; odds ratio: 0.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.09 for regorafenib). Regorafenib (80 mg) was superior to the placebo in terms of the overall survival and progression-free survival and inferior to trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib. Network analysis revealed that the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib was fundamentally similar, and both the agents were superior to regorafenib.

Conclusion:

Regorafenib (80 mg) was superior to the placebo, but inferior to 160 mg regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib. This study further revealed that the efficiency of trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib is identical, but their toxicity profiles are different.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib as beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an adjusted indirect meta-analysis and systematic review

Background:

The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC.

Methods:

A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed.

Results:

We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p = 0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p = 0.94) and TAS-102 (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p = 0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p = 0.5; ORR: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p = 0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p = 0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p = 0.08; ORR: RR = 0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p = 0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102.

Conclusion:

Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.

Treatment guidelines of metastatic colorectal cancer in older patients from the French Society of Geriatric Oncology (SoFOG)

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines dedicated to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. Since 2013 no recent guidelines are specifically dedicated to older patients and based on a systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary Task Force with digestive oncologists, geriatricians and methodologists from the SoFOG was formed in 2016 to update recommendations on medical treatment of mCRC based on a systematic review of publications from 2000 to 2018. Search strategy has followed a standardized protocol from the formulation of clinical questions and definition of a search algorithm to the selection of complete articles for recommendations.

RESULTS

The four selected key questions were: For which older patients with mCRC can we considered: (1) Any chemotherapy, (2) Mono or poly-chemotherapy, (3) Anti-angiogenic therapy, (4) Other targeted therapy. Main recommendations for older patients are: (1) Omission of chemotherapy should be discussed with a geriatrician for patients with severe comorbidities, advanced dementia, uncontrolled psychiatric disorder or severe loss of autonomy. (2) If tumor response is not the main aim, a mono-chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil combined with bevacizumab is recommended as first-line. (3) For patients with symptoms related to metastases or with a planned metastasis ablation, a doublet chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab or anti-EGFR antibody in the context of a RAS wild type tumor is recommended as first-line. Preliminary data suggest that regorafenib may be used, in its registered indication, in patients under 80 with a performance status of 0 and no autonomy alterations and that trifluridine-tipiracil may be used with a tight supervising of hematological function.

Single-arm phase II trial to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of regorafenib monotherapy in patients over 70 with previously treated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma FFCD 1404 - REGOLD

BACKGROUND

Regorafenib significantly increases overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated but gives toxicities.

OBJECTIVES

to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib at it's approved dose in the older population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter single-arm phase II enrolled patients ≥70 years old after the failure of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, anti-VEGF, and anti-EGFR treatment. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) 2 months after initiation of regorafenib (160 mg/day, 3 weeks on/1 week off).

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were enrolled, with a median age of 77 years. The 2 months DCR was 31.4% in the 35 evaluable patients. For the 42 patients that received at least one dose of regorafenib, median progression-free survival and OS were 2.2 and 7.5 months. The median time to autonomy degradation and quality of life degradation was 3.1 and 3.2 months, respectively. A grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events was observed in 35/42 patients, notably: fatigue (45.2%), hand-foot skin reaction (19.0%), hypertension (21.4%), and diarrhea (7.1%). There is a trend to achieve DCR in patients ≤80 years and a trend to discontinue the study due to toxicity in patients with ECOG ≥1, over 80 years and with impaired baseline autonomy.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with regorafenib in pretreated patients ≥70 years is feasible and demonstrate similar efficacy that was observed in previous studies in young patients. Fatigue is the most frequent severe adverse event. However, caution should be taken for older patients with ECOG ≥1, over 80 years, and with impaired baseline autonomy.

Pharmacotherapeutic considerations for elderly patients with colorectal cancer

Introduction: Oncology care in the elderly presents a dilemma. The majority of cancer cases are diagnosed in the elderly yet they are underrepresented in clinical trials. In addition to limited evidence-based medicine, the elderly is a heterogeneous population filled with pharmacotherapeutic challenges and barriers. Elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment decisions encompass these challenges.Areas covered: Treatment based solely on chronological age is an unacceptable practice. Physiologic factors such as function, cognition, comorbidities, polypharmacy, among others must be considered. Oncology guidelines emphasize using a geriatric assessment (GA) as opposed to traditional oncology performance status measures to best identify risks. Our review shines light on these issues as they pertain to elderly unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Expert opinion: The practical use of GA tools in oncology remain to be determined. Current barriers are the lack of a consistent tool to unify decision-making, provider education, and evidence-based use/outcomes in specific cancers. mCRC antineoplastic data surrounding GAs are scarce, and current mCRC national treatment algorithms are not stratified to encompass GA-driven therapy. Therefore, providers lack clear guidance or practicality of use. We hope mCRC trial designs will abandon age cutoffs and instead place more focus on GAs for inclusion and outcomes.

Meta-Analysis of Regorafenib-Associated Adverse Events and Their Management in Colorectal and Gastrointestinal Stromal Cancers

INTRODUCTION

To assess the risk factors associated with regorafenib-related adverse events (AEs) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). We also evaluated different measures of combatting AEs and their success rate to aid physicians in early identification and management of reported AEs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2018 according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled estimates with Pearson correlation were obtained with fixed or random-effects models.

RESULTS

From our analysis, it was evident that AEs were more common in patients aged less than 65 years compared to those aged at least 65 years (71.3% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation was observed between the occurrence of AEs and a dose of 160 mg (r = 0.967; p = 0.001) while no significant correlation was found at 120 mg and 80 mg. The common measures used to manage AEs included lowering the regorafenib dose (41%), intermittent drug withdrawal (66.7%), and complete drug withdrawal (19%). About 57% of patients recovered from AE after their initiating dose was lowered.

CONCLUSION

Regorafenib-associated AEs are more common at an initiating dose of 160 mg. Considering that the efficacy depends on the dosage, 120 mg might be a better choice for mCRC and GIST patients; further studies are needed to validate the results of our analysis. Further prompt identification and management of AEs are required to help the patients continue with drug therapy.

Relation between sarcopenia and dose-limiting toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received regorafenib

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia is related to poor prognosis and drug toxicities in solid tumors. The aim of our study is to investigate the predisposition of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who started regorafenib treatment to sarcopenia and prolonged survival.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who receives regorafenib were search retrospectively. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as dose reduction or toxicity requiring drug withdrawal. Sarcopenia evaluation was made with computed tomography performed within a month before treatment. Progression-free survival and overall survival were estimated.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were found as suitable for the study. 63.9% of patients were found as basally sarcopenic. Dose-limiting toxicity occured 13 of 23 patients (56.5%) with basal sarcopenia, whereas only 1 of 13 patients (7.6%) with no sarcopenia exhibited dose-limiting toxicity (p = 0.005). Three patients suffered from grade 3-4 toxicity. Hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and mucosal rash were the most seen side effects. Mean regorafenib treatment duration was 3.36 months. There was no significant difference in the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) between sarcopenic patients and patients with no sarcopenia. Durations were as OS 24.2 weeks in patients with sarcopenia (95% CI 16.7-31.7), 28.1 weeks in patients with no sarcopenia (95% CI 20.5-35.7) (p = 0.36), and as PFS 14.2 weeks in patients with sarcopenia (95% CI 12.1-16.4), 14.8 weeks in patients with no sarcopenia (95% CI 9.7-20.1) (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

Dose-limiting toxicity was significantly higher in basally sarcopenic patients who were started regorafenib as treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma. There was no significant relationship between overall survival and progression-free survival with sarcopenia.

Efficacy of Regorafenib in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-institutional Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Regorafenib is a multi-kinase inhibitor approved for treatment of refractory advanced colorectal cancer. It was found in the clinical trials to have a modest benefit and significant toxicity. Our aim was to assess the outcome in our local clinic practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records of patients with confirmed colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib were reviewed. Clinical, pathological, and molecular data were collected. Efficacy and factors of possible prognostic significance were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with regorafenib from February 2014 to February 2016 in 4 different institutions (median age: 50.5 years; male: 40 [51.3%]; KRAS mutant: 41 [52%]; right colonic primary: 18 [23%]). A total of 52 patients (66.7%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status of 0 to 1, whereas in 25 patients (32.1%) it was >1. In total, 58 patients (74%) had dose reduction. No patient achieved objective response, 15 patients (19%) achieved stable disease, and 56 patients (72%) had progressive disease. With a median follow-up of 6.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-3.3) and overall survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-9.7). Only performance status of ⩽1 had a statistically significant impact on progression-free survival and overall survival in both univariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Regorafenib in our clinical practice has equal efficacy to reported data from pivotal registration trials. Our data suggest that performance status is the most important prognostic factor in patients treated with regorafenib, suggesting a careful selection of patients.

Treatment of Rectal Cancer in Older Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older adults but current guidelines do not incorporate the associated specific challenges leading to wide variation in the delivery of cancer care to this subset of population. Here, we will review the current data available regarding the management of rectal cancer in older adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

The greatest challenge arises in the management of stage II/III disease as it involves tri-modality treatment that can be harder to tolerate by frail older patients. Response to neoadjuvant treatment is being used as a new marker to tailor further therapy and possibly avoid surgery. Oxaliplatin can be omitted from the adjuvant treatment without compromising outcomes. Physicians should perform geriatric assessment utilizing many validated tools available to help predict treatment tolerability and outcomes in older adults that can help personalize subsequent management. Most older adults can undergo standard therapy for stages I, II, or III rectal cancer with curative intent. Increasing evidence suggests that patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment may be observed closely with the possibility of avoiding surgery. Studies are evaluating alternate systemic treatments for advanced metastatic disease with the hope of maintaining quality of life without compromising cancer outcomes.

Regorafenib: a promising treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most frequent malignant tumors with 854,000 new cases per year and represents the second most frequent cause of cancer-death. Despite surveillance, the number of patients that are diagnosed at a stage in which they are eligible for curative treatments ranges from 30% to 60%. Advanced HCC (BCLC-C) is characterized by a median survival of 6 months. Sorafenib, the first systemic drug proven to be effective in prolonging survival of unresectable HCC, was approved by the FDA in 2007 but no second-line treatment was available for a decade for patients progressing on sorafenib. Finally, in 2016, the RESORCE trial demonstrated regorafenib as an effective second-line treatment. Areas covered: In this manuscript, the authors review the principal preclinical and clinical trials on regorafenib used in the treatment of unresectable HCC patients progressing on sorafenib and highlight both the advantages and the limitations of this drug. Expert opinion: Regorafenib is the only second-line treatment available for patients progressing on sorafenib. Despite its promising clinical application, many doubts still remain, necessitating further investigation to explore the tolerability of this drug in Child-Pugh B and sorafenib-intolerant patients, while its scarce cost-effectiveness must also be improved.