Combination Therapy as a Promising Way to Fight Oral Cancer

Oral cancer is a highly aggressive tumor with invasive properties that can lead to metastasis and high mortality rates. Conventional treatment strategies, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, alone or in combination, are associated with significant side effects. Currently, combination therapy has become the standard practice for the treatment of locally advanced oral cancer, emerging as an effective approach in improving outcomes. In this review, we present an in-depth analysis of the current advancements in combination therapies for oral cancer. The review explores the current therapeutic options and highlights the limitations of monotherapy approaches. It then focuses on combinatorial approaches that target microtubules, as well as various signaling pathway components implicated in oral cancer progression, namely, DNA repair players, the epidermal growth factor receptor, cyclin-dependent kinases, epigenetic readers, and immune checkpoint proteins. The review discusses the rationale behind combining different agents and examines the preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the effectiveness of these combinations, emphasizing their ability to enhance treatment response and overcome drug resistance. Challenges and limitations associated with combination therapy are discussed, including potential toxicity and the need for personalized treatment approaches. A future perspective is also provided to highlight the existing challenges and possible resolutions toward the clinical translation of current oral cancer therapies.

Targeted Therapy in the Palliative Setting of Colorectal Cancer-Survival and Medical Costs

(1) Background: Targeted therapy is used alone or together with chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess overall survival and medical costs in a cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. (2) Methods: Demographic and clinical characteristics of 337 patients and pathological data of colorectal tumors were retrospectively collected in this population-based study. The overall survival and medical costs for patients receiving chemotherapy plus targeted therapy were compared with those for patients receiving chemotherapy only. (3) Results: Patients administered chemotherapy plus targeted therapy were less frail and had more often RAS wild-type tumors but had higher CEA levels than patients receiving chemotherapy only. No prolonged overall survival could be observed in patients receiving palliative targeted therapy. The medical costs for patients undergoing treatment with targeted therapy were significantly higher than for patients treated only with chemotherapy; they were especially higher in the group receiving targeted therapy early than late in the palliative setting. (4) Conclusions: The use of targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer leads to significantly higher medical costs when used early in the palliative setting. No positive effects of the use of targeted therapy could be observed in this study; therefore, we suggest that targeted therapy be used in later lines of palliative therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Efficacy and safety of third-line or later-line targeted treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Targeted therapy has been standardized in front-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), while explicit recommendations for third- or later-line are still lacking. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy in the third- or later-line treatment for mCRC via meta-analysis, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical or research practice. Comprehensive retrieval of related studies was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Studies were stratified with patient characteristics and pharmacological classification of the drugs. For the data available for quantitative analysis, pooled overall response rate, disease control rate, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events rate with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 22 studies (1,866 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Data from 17 studies (1,769 patients) involving targets of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were extracted for meta-analyses. The overall response rates for monotherapy and combined therapy were 4% (95% CI: 3%, 5%) and 20% (95% CI: 11%, 29%). The pooled HRs (combined therapy vs. mono) for OS and PFS were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.45). Another five studies were included in narrative depiction, involving targets of BRAF, HER-2, ROS1, and NTRK. The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that VEGF and EGFR inhibitors manifest promising clinical response rates and prolonged survival in the treatment of mCRC with acceptable adverse events.

Real-World Results of Raltitrexed Combined with S-1 and Bevacizumab in Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

Treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are scarce. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of raltitrexed combined with S-1 and bevacizumab in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic CRC in a clinical real-world setting.

Patients and Methods

Records of patients with metastatic CRC refractory to standard therapies who initiated raltitrexed plus S-1 and bevacizumab from October 2017 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed at our institution. The study endpoints included median overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Forty-four patients with metastatic CRC, who had previously undergone standard chemotherapy received the regimen comprising raltitrexed plus S-1 and bevacizumab. As of March 2022, the median follow-up was 23.2 months (95% confidence interval 15.8-30.6). The median OS and median PFS were 13.5 (95% CI 9.9-17.1) and 4.7 months (95% CI 3.6-5.8), respectively, with a 16-week PFS rate of 60.9%. Among 43 patients with measurable lesions, the ORR and DCR were 7.0% (3/43) and 65.1% (28/43), respectively. Patients without peritoneal metastases (P = 0.003, hazard ratio 0.160, 95% CI 0.048-0.531), lower carcinoembryonic antigen level (≤42.8 ng/mL) (P = 0.039, HR 0.382, 95% CI 0.153-0.952), and no previous treatment with both vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF) and S-1 (P = 0.020, HR 0.215, 95% CI 0.059-0.785) had better OS. The incidence of any grade of treatment-related AEs was 88.6%, most of which were mild to moderate, and no treatment-related deaths occurred.

Conclusion

Raltitrexed combined with S-1 and bevacizumab shows promising antitumor activity and safety and could be an alternative for patients with metastatic CRC who are refractory or intolerant to standard therapy.

Antitumor effects of bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine drugs on human oral squamous cell carcinoma

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) serves an important role in new blood vessel formation or angiogenesis, which is a critical event in tumor growth and metastasis. Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against VEGF-A, whereas S-1 is a fluoropyrimidine antineoplastic agent that induces apoptosis in various types of cancer cells. The present study evaluated the antitumor effects of bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or S-1 against oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in vitro and in vivo. Two human OSCC cell lines were used, namely the high VEGF-A-expressing HSC-2 cells and the low VEGF-A-expressing SAS cells. MTT assay was used to evaluate the effect of bevacizumab and/or 5-FU against HSC-2 and SAS cell proliferation. Additionally, the antitumor effect of bevacizumab was evaluated alone and in combination with S-1 against HSC-2 tumors in nude mice. S-1 (6.9 mg/kg/day) was administered orally every day for 3 weeks, and bevacizumab (5 ml/kg/day) was injected intraperitoneally twice per week for 3 weeks. Apoptotic cells in mouse tumors were detected using the TUNEL method, and cell proliferation and microvessel density (MVD) were determined by immunohistochemical staining of Ki-67 and CD31, respectively. Bevacizumab alone did not inhibit OSCC cell proliferation in vitro, and did not exhibit any synergistic inhibitory effect in combination with 5-FU in vitro. However, combined bevacizumab and S-1 therapy exerted synergistic and significant antitumor effects in vivo on HSC-2 tumor xenografts, and induced apoptosis in tumor cells. Furthermore, this combination therapy led to decreased MVD and cell proliferative abilities, as well as increased apoptosis in residual tumors. The present findings suggested that the bevacizumab plus S-1 combination therapy may exert antitumor effects in high VEGF-A-expressing OSCC cells.

A systematic review of salvage therapies in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Established that the only approved agents in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are trifluoridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, we conducted a systematic review of all the published phase 2-3 trials, with the scope to evaluate the benefit of any later-line regimens in refractory metastatic CRC.

METHODS

Phase 2-3 studies that enrolled patients with stage IV disease receiving salvage therapies for refractory CRC were identified using electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). Clinical outcomes were pooled using a point estimates for the weighted values of median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (ORR), stable disease rate (SD), and 6-month and 1-year OS.

RESULTS

Overall, 7556 patients were included from 67 studies (n = 70 arms). Overall, the pooled ORR and SD were 15.4% (95% CI 13-18%) and 36.9% (95% CI 33.5-40.6%). Median PFS, 6-month and 1-year OS, and median OS were 3.2 (95% CI 2.9-3.3) months, 65.4% (95% CI 61.9-68.8%), 36% (95% CI 32.3-39.9%) and 8.8 (95% CI 8.3-9.2) months. Overall survival was different in the monochemotherapy, polychemotherapy, chemotherapy + targeted therapy, and targeted therapy alone arms (7.6, 9.5, 10.3, and 7.9 months, respectively, P for difference = 0.01). Median PFS were respectively 2.3, 3.9, 3.8, and 2.6, respectively (P for difference < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, combination therapy (polychemotherapy with or without targeted agents) is associated with a higher control of disease and better outcome than approved agents. Treatment, if possible, should be personalized according to the patients' conditions, physician preference and molecular profile of disease.

Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of S-1-based regimens in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies have found that oral S-1-based regimens are more effective than intravenous FOLFOX4/FOLFIRI regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

AIM

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of S-1-based regimens in the treatment of patients with refractory mCRC by meta-analysis, and to provide evidence-based medicine-related evidence.

METHODS

Controlled trials evaluating S-1-based regimens for the treatment of mCRC from January 2009 to January 2019 were retrieved from VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, CNKI database, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase. Meta-analysis of the included studies was conducted with Revman 5.3 software and estimated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The results of meta-analysis showed that the 3-year overall survival rate and 3-year recurrence-free survival rate were significantly higher in the study group (OR = 0.65, 95%CI: 0.47-0.89, P = 0.008; OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 1.03-2.06, P = 0.04). The study group had less adverse events than the control group (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.53-0.87, P = 0.002). The incidence of bone marrow suppression, alopecia, nausea and vomiting, and skin reactions in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05)

CONCLUSION

S-1-based regimens have better efficacy and adverse event profile in the treatment of refractory mCRC than FOLFOX4/FOLFIRI regimen.

Gut microbiome associated with chemotherapy-induced diarrhea from the CapeOX regimen as adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colorectal cancer

Background

Chemotherapy induced diarrhea (CID) is a common side effect in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. The aim of our study was to explore the association between gut microorganisms and CID from the CapeOX regimen in resected stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Results

After screening and identification, 17 stool samples were collected from resected stage III CRC patients undergoing the CapeOX regimen. Bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA genes was sequenced, and a bioinformatics analysis was executed to screen for the distinctive gut microbiome and the functional metabolism associated with CID due to the CapeOX regimen. The gut microbial community richness and community diversity were lower in CID (p < 0.05 vs control group). Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most predominant species (31.22%) among the gut microbiome in CRC patients with CID. There were 75 microorganisms with statistically significant differences at the species level between the CRC patients with and without CID (LDA, linear discriminant analysis score > 2), and there were 23 pathways that the differential microorganisms might be involved in.

Conclusions

The gut microbial community structure and diversity have changed in CRC patients with CID. It may provide novel insights into the prevention and treatment of CID.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13099-019-0299-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Regorafenib or rechallenge chemotherapy: which is more effective in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus rechallenge chemotherapy in previously treated mCRC patients in third-line setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 104 patients diagnosed with mCRC enrolled from 2010 to 2017 in six oncology centers were analyzed. Tumor treatment options were obtained from follow-up and treatment files. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the regimen which was previously administered to patients in one of the therapy lines and obtained disease control, these were the patients whose disease did not progress within 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients had received previously two lines of chemotherapy regimens for mCRC. Of these, 73 patients with mCRC who received regorafenib and 31 those who received rechallenge chemotherapy in third-line therapy were analyzed. Overall survival was better with rechallenge than it was with regorafenib (HR 0.29 95% CI 0.16-0.54, p < 0.001). Median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.1-15.9) in rechallenge versus 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0-7.3) in regorafenib group (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival in the rechallenge group showed a higher median value of 9.16 months (95% CI 7.15-11.18) versus with that recorded in the regorafenib group of 3.41 months (95% CI 3.01-3.82), in favor of rechallenge chemotherapy. The most common adverse events of regorafenib was liver function test abnormality and hand-foot syndrome. Although grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar, non-hematologic toxicities were more common than those of rechallenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Rechallenge is still a valuable option against regorafenib in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy. Even though mCRC patients treated with regorafenib benefited clinically from this treatment, we revealed that chemotherapy rechallenge compared to regorafenib was more effective in the third-line treatment for mCRC patients.

Phase III study of cisplatin with or without S-1 in patients with stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer

Background

This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and safety of S-1 plus cisplatin vs. cisplatin alone as first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer.

Methods

Patients were randomised (1:1) to S-1 plus cisplatin (study group) or cisplatin alone (control group). In each cycle, cisplatin 50 mg/m² was administered on Day 1 in both groups. S-1 was administered orally at 80–120 mg daily on Days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle in the study group. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 375 patients were enrolled, of whom 364 (188, study group; 176, control group) received treatment. Median OS was 21.9 and 19.5 months in the study and control groups, respectively (log-rank P = 0.125; hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–1.05). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.3 and 4.9 months in the study and control groups, respectively (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48–0.80, P < 0.001). The adverse event (AE) rate increased in the study group despite the absence of any unexpected AEs.

Conclusions

S-1 plus cisplatin did not show superiority over cisplatin alone in OS but significantly increased PFS in patients with stage IVB, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer. Since the standard therapy has changed in the course of this study, further studies are warranted to confirm the clinical positioning of S-1 combined with cisplatin for this population.

Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Background

The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear.

Materials and methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes.

Results

The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy.

Conclusions

These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.

Clinical analysis of bevacizumab targeting therapy in treating early colorectal carcinoma after operation

Clinical effects of bevacizumab target therapy in treating early colorectal carcinoma (CRC) after resection were analyzed. Ninety-two patients diagnosed with early CRC and treated with endoscopic mucosal resection for the first time were selected for the study. They were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group with 46 cases in each group. Control group was administered the chemotherapy regimen with oxaliplatin, calcium folinate and 5-fluorouracil, while bevacizumab targeting therapy was given to the observation group. The follow-up median time in these two groups was 30 months. In the observation group, objective response rate and disease control rate were higher than those in the control group, the adverse reaction rate was lower, and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). In the observation group, disease-free survival was prolonged (38.6 vs. 30.5 months, p<0.05); the recurrence rate was lower (13.0 vs. 30.4%, p<0.05); the survival rate was improved (91.3 vs. 76.1%, p<0.05). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions of follow-up serum in these two groups were lower; VEGF expression in the observation group was lower than that in the control group, and the differences had statistical significance (p<0.05). There was no statistical significance in comparison of positive expression in tissue VEGF (p>0.05). In conclusion, after bevacizumab targeting therapy in treating early CRC, VEGF expression of serum was significantly lower; treatment effects improved; adverse drug reaction was reduced; survival time was prolonged; the recurrence rate was reduced; the survival rate improved. It has good application values.