Adverse Events Associated with Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab in Patients with BRAFV600E-mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An in-depth Analysis of the BEACON CRC Study

Colon cancer biology and treatment in the era of precision oncology: A primer for Radiologists

In the era of precision oncology, systemic therapies for colon cancer are becoming increasingly biomarker-led, with implications for patients in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings. As the landscape for colon cancer treatment evolves and becomes more complex, it is important that all members of the multidisciplinary team keep abreast of developments to ensure the most effective care is delivered to patients. As core members of the colorectal multidisciplinary team, Radiologists play a central role throughout the patient journey. This review serves as an educational summary of current and emerging treatment pathways in colon cancer, standards for biomarker testing, mechanisms of action for key drugs, important treatment-related complications, relevant tumour biology that underpins patterns of disease and treatment response, and the specific implications systemic therapies have for cancer imaging and Radiologists. We also highlight the increasing role for radiology in patient stratification and the importance of imaging biomarkers. It is crucial that Radiologists understand the current landscape of colon cancer treatment and emerging strategies on the horizon in clinical trials. Only through engagement across the wider multidisciplinary team will we deliver true personalised medicine for patients with colon cancer.

Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Matched targeted therapies (MTT) given alone or in combination with systemic anti-cancer therapies have delivered proven survival benefit for many people with newly diagnosed cancer. However, there is little evidence of their effectiveness in the recurrent or late-stage setting. With this uncertainty, alongside the perception that late-stage cancers are too genetically heterogenous or too mutationally diverse to benefit from matched targeted therapies, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumours in people with refractory cancer remains a low priority. As a result, next-generation sequencing testing of recurrent or late-stage disease is discouraged. We lack evidence to support the utility of next generation sequencing in guiding matched targeted therapies in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of matched targeted therapies in people with advanced cancers in randomised controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) search portal up to 30th October 2024. We also screened reference lists of included studies and also the publications that cited these studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had enroled participants with advanced/refractory solid or haematological cancers who had progressed through at least one line of standard anti-cancer systemic therapy. To be eligible, all participants should have received matched targeted therapy based on next-generation sequencing carried out on their tumour (tumour tissue, blood or bone marrow).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically searched medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase) and trial registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rates (ORR), serious (grade 3 or 4) adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QOL). We used a random-effects model to pool outcomes across studies and compared predefined subgroups using interaction tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of certainty was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 37 studies, out of which 35 studies (including 9819 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies compared a matched targeted therapy intervention to standard-of-care treatment, non-matched targeted therapies or no treatment (best supportive care): Matched targeted therapy versus standard-of-care treatment Matched targeted therapy (MTT) compared with standard systematic therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 34% (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 14 studies, 3848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MTT might have little to no difference in risk of death (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 14 studies, 3848 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in severe (grade 3/4) adverse events between matched targeted therapy and standard-of-care treatment (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment versus standard-of-care treatment alone Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment compared with standard-of-care treatment alone probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, 14 studies, 2,637 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of death by 21% (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; 11 studies, 2575 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The combination of MTT and standard-of-care treatment may also increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in the incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and quality of life between the groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy versus non-matched targeted therapy Matched targeted therapy compared with non-matched targeted therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 24% (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89; 3 studies, 1568 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of death by 25% (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86, 1307 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on overall response rates between MTT and non-MTT. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events between MTT and non-MTT (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies comparing MTT and non-MTT reported quality of life. Matched targeted therapy versus best supportive care Matched targeted therapy compared with the best supportive care (BSC) i.e. no active treatment probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 63% (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.50; 4 studies, 858 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival between groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, 3 studies, 783 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (very low-certainty of evidence) and incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty of evidence) between the groups. Quality of life was reported in a single study but did not provide composite scores. Risk of bias The overall risk of bias was judged low for eight studies, unclear for two studies, and the remaining 27 studies were high risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Matched targeted therapies guided by next-generation sequencing in people with advanced cancer prolongs the time before cancer progresses compared to standard therapies. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that it prolongs overall survival, improves the quality of life or increases adverse events. Importantly, this review supports equitable access to next-generation sequencing technology for all people with advanced cancer and offers them the opportunity to access genotype-matched targeted therapies.

Expert consensus on the optimal management of BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in the Asia-Pacific region

The burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is high in the Asia-Pacific region, and several countries in this region have among the highest and/or fastest growing rates of CRC in the world. A significant proportion of patients will present with or develop metastatic CRC (mCRC), and BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC represents a particularly aggressive phenotype that is less responsive to standard chemotherapies. In light of recent therapeutic advances, an Asia-Pacific expert consensus panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. The expert panel comprised nine medical oncologists from Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan (the authors), who met to review current literature and develop eight consensus statements that describe the optimal management of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC in the Asia-Pacific region. As agreed by the expert panel, the consensus statements recommend molecular testing at diagnosis to guide individualized treatment decisions, propose optimal treatment pathways according to microsatellite stability status, advocate for more frequent monitoring of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC, and discuss local treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. Together, these expert consensus statements are intended to optimize treatment and improve outcomes for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC in the Asia-Pacific region.

Efficacy and safety of the combination of encorafenib/cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: an AGEO real-world multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has become the standard of care in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after a prior systemic therapy. This study aims to describe the efficacy and safety of encorafenib/cetuximab +/- binimetinib in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC in a real-world setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC who received this combination from January 2020 to June 2022 in 30 centers.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were included, with 55% of women, a median age of 62 years, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) >1 in 20% of cases. The main tumor characteristics were 60% of right-sided primary tumor, 11% of microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficient phenotype, and liver and peritoneum being the two main metastatic sites (57% and 51%). Encorafenib/cetuximab +/- binimetinib was prescribed in the first, second, third, and beyond third line in 4%, 56%, 29%, and 11%, respectively, of cases, with the encorafenib/cetuximab/binimetinib combination for 21 patients (10%). With encorafenib/cetuximab treatment, 21% of patients experienced grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), with each type of grade ≥3 AE observed in <5% of patients. The objective response rate was 32.2% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.2%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9-5.4 months] and the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (95% CI 7.8-10.8 months). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with a shorter PFS were synchronous metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 1.66, P = 0.04] and ECOG-PS >1 (HR 1.88, P = 0.007), and those associated with a shorter OS were the same factors (HR 1.71, P = 0.03 and HR 2.36, P < 0.001, respectively) in addition to treatment beyond the second line (HR 1.74, P = 0.003) and high carcinoembryonic antigen level (HR 1.72, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

This real-world study showed that in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC treated with encorafenib/cetuximab +/- binimetinib, efficacy and safety data confirm those reported in the BEACON registration trial. The main poor prognostic factors for this treatment are synchronous metastases and ECOG-PS >1.

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.

Targeting EPHA2 with Kinase Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer

The ephrin type-A 2 receptor tyrosine kinase (EPHA2) is involved in the development and progression of various cancer types, including colorectal cancer (CRC). There is also evidence that EPHA2 plays a key role in the development of resistance to the endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody Cetuximab used clinically in CRC. Despite the promising pharmacological potential of EPHA2, only a handful of specific inhibitors are currently available. In this concept paper, general strategies for EPHA2 inhibition with molecules of low molecular weight (small molecules) are described. Furthermore, available examples of inhibiting EPHA2 in CRC using small molecules are summarized, highlighting the potential of this approach.

Clinical research progress on BRAF V600E-mutant advanced colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the malignant tumors that pose a serious threat to human health. A particularly bad prognosis might be expected for colorectal tumors with the unique molecular subtype BRAF V600E mutation. With the development of precision therapy, the advent of molecularly targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors has improved the outcome of intermediate to advanced colorectal cancer. However, the duration of drug benefit is usually short, and overall survival and progression-free survival remain suboptimal. Therefore, investigators are exploring more rational, safe, and effective drug combination regimens through clinical trials to provide longer survival for patients with such genetic mutations with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This article reviews the progress of clinical research on molecularly targeted drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, first-line chemotherapeutic agents, and different combination therapy regimens (including different targeted drug combinations, immune combination targeting, and chemotherapy combination targeting) for colorectal cancer patients with BRAF V600E mutation, which provides a reference for further in-depth clinical exploration of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients with BRAF V600E mutation.

Renal Disorders with Oral Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database

BACKGROUND

this study assessed the nephrotoxicity of regorafenib (REG) and encorafenib (ENC) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through an analysis of reports from the US Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

METHODS

descriptive and disproportional analyses were performed for all reports using ENC and REG as the primary suspect.

RESULTS

A total of 379 reports had at least one renal adverse drug reaction (ADR), and these ADRs were mainly related to REG (93.1%). Potential safety signals for REG included chromaturia (n = 44; ROR = 12.00, CI 95% = 8.92-16.16; IC = 2.36, IC025-IC075 = 2.06-2.66), hydronephrosis (10; 8.70, 4.67-16.19; 1.85, 1.23-2.47), nephrotic syndrome (7; 5.73, 2.73-12.03; 1.47, 0.73-2.21), renal impairment (53; 4.16, 3.17-5.45; 1.39, 1.12-1.66), dysuria (19; 3.06, 1.95-4.81; 1.06, 0.61-1.52), renal failure (38; 1.66, 1.20-2.28; 0.49, 0.17-0.81), and acute kidney injury (AKI) (43; 1.46, 1.08-1.97; 0.37, 0.07-0.67). For ENC, consistent disproportionalities were observed for AKI (n = 11; ROR = 3.79, CI 95% = 2.09-6.90; IC = 1.32, IC025-IC075 = 0.72-1.91) and dysuria (4; 6.50, 2.43-17.39; 1.86, 0.88-2.85).

CONCLUSIONS

these findings highlight some not extensively reported renal ADRs that require further investigations to better characterize the safety profiles of REG and ENC in patients with mCRC.