Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab-based first-line treatment strategy: A pre-specified secondary analysis of the Valentino study

Association Between Health-Related Quality of Life Measures and Survival Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials and in Clinical Decision Making: A Narrative Review

For decades, oncology research has primarily relied on survival-based endpoints, such as progression-free survival and overall survival, to evaluate treatment efficacy. However, recent studies and international guidelines underscore the importance of incorporating patient-reported outcomes through patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). PROMs provide a more comprehensive view of treatment effectiveness, integrating the concepts of 'living longer' and 'living better.' Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvements have an intrinsic value for the patient, with importance in the overall definition of treatment value. These findings have sparked discussions regarding the relationship between HRQoL and traditional survival endpoints, influencing both oncology clinical trials and their interpretation for decision-making processes in practice. To effectively integrate PROMs into research, the choice of study design, appropriate PROMs questionnaires, and timing of administration are critical. The clinician's ability to interpret HRQoL data with awareness is equally important to ensure good clinical decision making. A pivotal concept in this context is the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), which is essential to inform the interpretation of treatment effect size in terms of clinically relevant HRQoL changes. Incorporating PROMs fosters a patient-centered approach to cancer care, aligning treatment goals with individual preferences and values. By balancing survival outcomes with quality of life, and through empathetic communication, healthcare providers can deliver treatments that are not only effective but also resonate with patients' experiences and priorities.

Dermatology-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab (Pmab) maintenance after FOLFOX + Pmab induction: a prespecified secondary analysis of the phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial

BACKGROUND

The key endpoints for the assessment of the effect of maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are survival and quality-of-life outcomes. We aimed to compare dermatology-related quality of life (DRQOL) in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) + panitumumab (Pmab) versus FU/FA alone as maintenance therapy after folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin + Pmab induction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212; NCT01991873) trial included 387 patients at 70 community/academic sites in Germany. For this prespecified secondary analysis, DRQOL outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (FACT-EGFRI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Skindex-16 questionnaires at every second cycle of therapy until disease progression/death.

RESULTS

At least one DRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 310/377 (82%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 216/248 (87%) patients who were randomized and received maintenance therapy. Patients who experienced skin toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) during induction therapy had significantly worse DRQOL according to all three measures, compared to those who did not [i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 2 -12.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.01 to -5.73; P < 0.001]. During maintenance therapy, significantly improved recovery was observed in all DRQOL measures for patients receiving FU/FA, compared to those receiving additional Pmab (i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 6 -16.53; 95% CI -22.68 to -10.38; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this secondary analysis of a phase II randomized clinical trial, patient-reported DRQOL outcomes correlated with skin toxicity according to NCI-CTCAE during induction therapy. Maintenance therapy with FU/FA + Pmab was associated with deteriorated DRQOL versus FU/FA alone in patients with RAS wt mCRC.

Impact of Systemic Treatments on Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with RAS-Positive Stage IV Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

This systematic review critically evaluates the impact of systemic treatments on outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, with studies published up to December 2023 across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. From an initial pool of 1345 articles, 11 relevant studies were selected for inclusion, encompassing a diverse range of systemic treatments, including panitumumab combined with FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRI, irinotecan paired with panitumumab, regorafenib followed by cetuximab ± irinotecan and vice versa, and panitumumab as a maintenance therapy post-induction. Patient demographics predominantly included middle-aged to elderly individuals, with a slight male predominance. Racial composition, where reported, showed a majority of Caucasian participants, highlighting the need for broader demographic inclusivity in future research. Key findings revealed that the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy (FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI) did not significantly compromise QoL while notably improving disease-free survival, with baseline EQ-5D HSI mean scores ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 and VAS mean scores from 70.1 to 74.1. Improvements in FACT-C scores and EQ-5D Index scores particularly favored panitumumab plus best supportive care in KRAS wild-type mCRC, with early dropout rates of 38-42% for panitumumab + BSC. Notably, cetuximab + FOLFIRI was associated with a median survival of 25.7 months versus 16.4 months for FOLFIRI alone, emphasizing the potential benefits of integrating targeted therapies with chemotherapy. In conclusion, the review underscores the significant impact of systemic treatments, particularly targeted therapies and their combinations with chemotherapy, on survival outcomes and QoL in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, and the need for personalized treatment.

Impacts of systemic treatments on health-related quality of life for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments regarding impacts of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to compare efficacy of systemic treatments on HRQoL among patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English up until July 2023, from databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and prominent conference databases, for this Bayesian network meta-analysis. Phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated at least two therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcomes were short-term and long-term mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scores. Secondary outcome was mean change in EQ-5D health utility scores. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on whether patients received systemic treatments before. We conducted various sensitivity analyses, including differentiating between chemotherapy types, and analyzed patient cohorts with non-specified gene expression levels as well as those with target KRAS expression statuses. The current systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023453315 and CRD42023420498).

RESULTS

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy significantly improved HRQoL over chemotherapy, with MDs of 9.27 (95% CI: 3.96 to 14.6) and 4.04 (95% CI: 0.11 to 7.94), respectively. Monotherapy significantly outperformed both combination therapy (MD 5.71, 95%CI 0.78 to 10.63) and no active treatment (MD 3.7, 95%CI 1.41 to 6.01) regarding GHS/QoL in the short-term. Combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy did not improve HRQoL. Focusing on HRQoL, cetuximab excelled when gene expression baselines were unspecified. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld these robust findings, unaffected by model or patient baseline characteristics. Evidence from clinical trials without specific gene level data suggested that monotherapies, especially targeted therapies such as cetuximab, demonstrated superiority in HRQoL. For KRAS wild-type patients, no significant HRQoL differences emerged between chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or their combination..

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy demonstrate superior HRQoL benefits, monotherapy such as cetuximab is associated with significant improvements as compared to combination therapy. However, tailoring these results to individual gene expression profiles requires more evidence.

The impact of clinical and translational research on the quality of life during the metastatic colorectal cancer patient journey

The journey of metastatic colorectal cancer patients is complex and challenging, requiring coordination and collaboration between multiple healthcare providers. Understanding patients' needs, fears, feelings, concerns, and behaviors is essential for providing individualized patient-centered care. In recent years, mCRC patients have experienced improvements in clinical outcomes, from 16 months of overall survival to 32 months, thanks to research. However, there is still room for improvement, and integrating clinical and translational research into routine practice can help patients benefit from treatments and techniques that would not be an option. In the Journey of mCRC patients, living well with cancer and quality of life becomes a priority given the outcomes of the disease. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are becoming therefore new estimands in Oncology. Patient advocates represent important figures in this process by prioritizing issues and research questions; evaluating research designs and the performance of the research; the analysis and interpretation of data; and how results are disseminated. Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and shared decision-making is essential for designing treatment strategies for individual patients. Quality of Life is often prioritized only when it comes to refractory advanced disease and end-of-life care, but it has to be integrated from the beginning, as the emotional impact of diagnosis leads to a vulnerable situation where patients' needs and preferences can be easily overseen. First-line treatment will be chosen among more treatment options than subsequent lines, with longer progression-free survival and a bigger impact on the outcomes. Practicing patient-centered care and optimizing first-line treatment for colorectal cancer patients requires a comprehensive understanding of patient experience and treatment outcomes, which can guide clinical practice and inform regulatory decisions for the benefit of patients.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab as maintenance therapy: a prespecified secondary analysis of the PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial

BACKGROUND

The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial.

METHODS

HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873).

RESULTS

At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed.

RESULTS

A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004-2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment.

CONCLUSION

When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

Post-induction Strategies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Few data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of post-induction strategies after the first-line treatment with anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. A systematic review and metanalysis might therefore be useful to highlight and even strengthen these data. A literature search in Pubmed, Embase, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings, ASCO Gastrointestinal Symposia, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses was performed. The search included RCTs of patients with mCRC treated with an initial period of cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT) in association with anti-EGFR (ie, panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen, and then switched to one of the following strategies: observation; maintenance with anti-EGFR, fluoropyrimidine (FP), or both; or continuing the induction regimen until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method fixed-effect model or the DerSimonian-Laird method random-effect model according to heterogeneity (I2). Analysis was performed on June 9, 2021. 7 studies (all phase II trials), including 1038 patients, were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In all studies, CT (induction or maintenance with FP) + anti-EGFR until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity prolonged OS (HR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.61-0.86]; P < .01) and PFS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.68-0.85; P < .01) compared to other agents (FP ± bevacizumab) or observation. Subgroup analyses for OS and PFS were performed according to type of maintenance therapy (containing or not containing single-agent anti-EGFR). Within patients evaluable for OS, CT + anti-EGFR combinations continued until disease progression were able to decrease the risk of death by 32% (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.84; P < .01) and the risk of progression by 25% (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.65-0.85; P < .01) over no maintenance or maintenance with anti-EGFR alone. Conversely, combination of CT + anti-EGFR were no better over anti-EGFR with FP in term of OS (HR = 0.81 [95%CI 0.60-1.09]; P = .17) and PFS (HR = 0.81 [95% 0.64, 1.01]; P = .06). Maintenance treatment with anti-EGFR + FP might be regarded as the better option following anti-EGFR based induction treatment in RAS wild-type mCRC, in terms of efficacy. This effect might be particularly amplified in left-sided BRAF wild-type mCRC patients. A higher level of evidence coming from phase III trials is auspicable.

Early onset metastatic colorectal cancer in patients receiving panitumumab-based upfront strategy: Overall and sex-specific outcomes in the Valentino trial

Anti-EGFRs plus doublet chemotherapy is considered the optimal upfront option for RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Early-onset (EO) mCRC has an increasing incidence and its prognostic/predictive role and management is debatable. We performed a post hoc analysis of Valentino study, that randomized RAS wild-type mCRC patients to two panitumumab-based maintenance regimens after FOLFOX/panitumumab induction. We assessed the safety and efficacy outcomes in patients stratified for age (<50/≥50 years old). We assessed progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (ORR), rate of treatment-related and panitumumab-related adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL). In 229 patients enrolled, 35 (15%) had EO mCRC, with a higher rate of female sex (P = .020) and lower rate of primary tumor resection (P = .001). Median PFS and OS were 10.9 vs 10.8 months (P = .593) and 28.1 vs 27.5 months (P = .865) in patients <50 and ≥50 years old, respectively, with no significant impact of maintenance arm. ORR and disease control rate were 74% vs 65% (P = .337) and 97% vs 81% (P = .013) in patients <50 or ≥50 years old. In younger patients, a trend for increased chemotherapy-related AEs (peculiarly anemia) was shown, while significantly decreased EGFR-related hypomagnesemia and increased skin rash were reported. No significant differences in treatment intensity or QoL were observed. In patients with EO mCRC and RAS wild-type status, we found no differences in terms of survival outcomes based on age when selecting maintenance strategies. Management of treatment-related AEs should consider the differential toxicity profile of age and sex.

Reinduction of an Anti-EGFR-based First-line Regimen in Patients with RAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Enrolled in the Valentino Study

Background

In patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), growing evidence supports anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) retreatment, whereas little is known on the outcomes of anti-EGFR-based reinduction therapy during the upfront strategy.

Methods

We included patients enrolled in the Valentino study who had disease progression and received at least one dose of post-progression therapy. The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for the survival analysis. When comparing the outcomes of anti-EGFR-based reinduction versus any second line, a propensity score–based matching was used.

Results

Liver-limited/single site of disease (P &lt; .001 and P = .002), left-sidedness (P = .029), surgery of metastases (P = .003), early tumor shrinkage, and deeper responses (P = .018 and P = .036) were associated with the use of anti-EGFR-based reinduction versus any other second line. All patients treated with reinduction had an anti-EGFR-free interval of at least 3 months. In the propensity score–matched population, progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the 2 treatment groups, the overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients treated with reinduction (P = .029), and the response rate was higher in patients treated with reinduction (P = .033). An oxaliplatin-free interval ≥12 months, left-sidedness, and molecular hyperselection beyond RAS/BRAF were associated with significantly better outcomes after anti-EGFR-based reinduction.

Conclusions

Reinduction strategies with anti-EGFR-based regimens are commonly used in clinical practice. Our data highlight the importance of clinical–molecular selection for re-treatments and the need for prospective strategy trials in selected populations.

Impact of age and gender on the efficacy and safety of upfront therapy with panitumumab plus FOLFOX followed by panitumumab-based maintenance: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the Valentino study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients fit enough to receive combination chemotherapy plus biological agents is an issue of growing interest. Also, gender-specific differential toxicity and efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based upfront treatments need to be explored.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Valentino was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, investigating two panitumumab-based maintenance strategies following first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX in RAS wild-type mCRC patients. We carried out a subgroup analysis, aimed at assessing the differences in efficacy, safety and quality of life (QoL) according to age (<70 versus ≥70 years) and gender (male versus female). Efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR); safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

No significant differences in terms of PFS, OS and ORR were observed between patients aged <70 or ≥70 years and the effect of the maintenance treatment arm on survival outcomes was similar in the two subgroups. The safety profile of both induction and maintenance treatment and the impact on QoL were similar in elderly and younger patients. No significant differences in PFS, OS, ORR or clinical benefit rate were observed according to gender. A significantly higher rate of overall grade 3/4 AEs (P = 0.008) and of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.017), any grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and any grade conjunctivitis (P = 0.033) was reported in female as compared to male patients. Conversely, we reported a significantly higher incidence of any grade skin rash (P = 0.0007) and hypomagnesemia (P = 0.029) in male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The upfront choice of an anti-EGFR-based doublet chemotherapy followed by a maintenance strategy represents a valuable option in RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of gender and age, though a careful evaluation of patients to maximize the risk/benefit ratio is warranted.

Clinicians' Attitude to Doublet Plus Anti-EGFR Versus Triplet Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment in Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, "Real-Life", Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease.

RESULTS

A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041).

CONCLUSION

Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases.

Systemic doxycycline for pre-emptive treatment of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line panitumumab-based therapy: a post hoc analysis of the Valentino study

INTRODUCTION

The combination of anti-EGFRs and doublet chemotherapy is considered the optimal upfront option for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The prophylactic or reactive treatment with tetracyclines for EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity is currently clinical practice, though non-conclusive results are available.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the Valentino study that randomized RAS wild-type mCRC patients to two panitumumab-based maintenance regimens after the first-line induction, aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of the administration of a pre-emptive doxycycline prophylaxis for anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity. We assessed the rate of treatment-related and panitumumab-related adverse events (AEs), treatment intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients, out of the 229 enrolled in the Valentino study, were eligible for the analysis. Overall, 143 (63%) and 83 (37%) patients received or not the antibiotic prophylaxis for skin toxicity. Any grade and G3/4 panitumumab-related AEs were reported in 89% versus 92% (p = 0.650) and 27% versus 27% (p = 1.000) patients who received or not the pre-emptive prophylaxis, respectively. Any grade and G3/4 skin rash occurred in 81% versus 90% (p = 0.085) and 27% versus 25% (p = 0.876) patients receiving or not the prophylaxis, respectively. No significant differences in terms of treatment duration, treatment delays or dose reductions, PFS, and OS were observed in the two sub-populations.

CONCLUSION

The adequate management of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity is fundamental to optimize the outcome of mCRC patients, balancing the survival benefit with patients' quality of life, especially in the first-line setting.

FOLFOXIRI-Bevacizumab or FOLFOX-Panitumumab in Patients with Left-Sided RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Doublets plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) are the preferred upfront option for patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is superior to doublets plus bevacizumab independently from primary tumor sidedness and RAS/BRAF status. No randomized comparison between FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab versus doublets plus anti-EGFRs is available in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We selected patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in five randomized trials: Valentino, TRIBE, TRIBE2, STEAM, and CHARTA. A propensity score-based analysis was performed to compare FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab with FOLFOX-panitumumab.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients received FOLFOX-panitumumab and 132 received FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 33.1 months in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group compared with 11.4 and 30.3 months in the FOLFOX-panitumumab group (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS, 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.04; p = .11; propensity score-adjusted HR for OS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08; p = .14). No significant differences in overall response rate and disease control rate were observed. A statistically nonsignificant difference in favor of FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was observed for OS after secondary resection of metastases. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group, with specific regard to grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (48% vs. 26%, adjusted p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Although randomized comparison is lacking, both FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab and FOLFOX-panitumumab are valuable treatment options in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A propensity score-based analysis of five trials was performed to compare FOLFOX-panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No significant differences were observed, but FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab achieved numerically superior survival outcomes versus FOLFOX-panitumumab. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group. These observations suggest that although doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFRs remains the preferred treatment in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is a valuable option able to provide similar, if not better, outcomes at the price of a moderate increase in toxicity and may be adopted based on patients' preference and potential impact on quality of life.