Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with continuous-infusion fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: final report of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors Trial

Fluoropyrimidine-induced hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity: recommendations for the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are an essential part of the majority of systemic regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of the oral FP S-1 has been approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with or without bevacizumab, for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC in whom it is not possible to continue treatment with another FP due to hand-foot syndrome (HFS) or cardiovascular toxicity (CVT). Subsequently, this indication has been included in the 2022 ESMO guidelines for metastatic CRC. Recommendations for use in daily practice are not available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Based on peer-reviewed published data on the use of S-1 in Western patients with metastatic CRC who switched from infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine to S-1 for reasons of HFS or CVT, recommendations for its use were formulated by an international group of medical oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic CRC and a cardio-oncologist.

RESULTS

In patients who experience pain and/or functional impairment due to HFS during treatment with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU, a switch to S-1 is recommended without prior dose reduction of capecitabine/5-FU. S-1 should preferably be initiated at full dose when HFS has decreased to grade ≤1. In patients with cardiac complaints, in whom an association with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU treatment cannot be excluded, capecitabine/5-FU should be discontinued and a switch to S-1 is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should guide clinicians in daily practice in the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with FP-containing regimens.

Biweekly cetuximab in combination with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) or irinotecan (XELIRI) in the first-line and second-line treatment of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Oral capecitabine in combination with intravenous oxaliplatin (XELOX) or irinotecan (XELIRI) are acceptable substitutions to fully intravenous regimens. Biweekly (as opposed to weekly) cetuximab is more convenient when combined with biweekly chemotherapy. Here, we report the tolerability and efficacy of biweekly cetuximab in combination with biweekly XELOX or XELIRI in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (RAS-WT mCRC).

Methods

Clinical data of consecutive patients with mCRC who received biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m²) in combination with XELOX or XELIRI between January 2009 and May 2019 in the first- or second-line settings was extracted. Dosage of XEL (Capecitabine/XELODA) was 1,000 mg/m² twice daily for 9 days, plus on day 1 oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² or irinotecan 180 mg/m². Treatment dose reduction and delay for ≥7 days was analysed as surrogates for toxicity. Extended RAS testing was performed in the context of this study for patients who received treatment based on limited KRAS-WT genotype.

Results

Sixty one patients with RAS-WT mCRC fulfilled the eligibility criteria. XELOX was administered to 26 (42.6%) and XELIRI to 35 (57.4%) of patients. For all patients in the first-line setting, the objective response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 54%, 8 months and 25 months, respectively. The corresponding outcomes for the subgroup of patients who received first-line XELOX were 68%, 10 months and not reached, respectively. For all patients in the second-line setting, the ORR, PFS and OS were 50%, 7 months and 20 months, respectively. Chemotherapy components dose reduction and delays were observed in 18 (29.5%) and 25 (41%) patients, respectively. The corresponding frequencies for cetuximab were 3 (5%) and 31 (50.8%).

Conclusion

Biweekly cetuximab in combination with XELOX or XELIRI is tolerable and effective. The addition of cetuximab to capecitabine and oxaliplatin is associated with favourable outcome.

Preventing adverse events of chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer by educating patients about the nocebo effect: a randomized-controlled trial

Background

Adverse events of chemotherapy may be caused by pharmacodynamics or psychological factors such as negative expectations, which constitute nocebo effects. In a randomized controlled trial, we examined whether educating patients about the nocebo effect is efficacious in reducing the intensity of self-reported adverse events.

Methods

In this proof-of-concept study, N = 100 outpatients (mean age: 60.2 years, 65% male, 54% UICC tumour stage IV) starting first-line, de novo chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers were randomized 1:1 to a nocebo education (n = 49) or an attention control group (n = 51). Our primary outcome was patient-rated intensity of four chemotherapy-specific and three non-specific adverse events (rated on 11-point Likert scales) at 10-days and 12-weeks after the first course of chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included perceived control of adverse events and tendency to misattribute symptoms.

Results

General linear models indicated that intensity of adverse events differed at 12-weeks after the first course of chemotherapy (mean difference: 4.04, 95% CI [0.72, 7.36], p = .02, d = 0.48), with lower levels in the nocebo education group. This was attributable to less non-specific adverse events (mean difference: 0.39, 95% CI [0.04, 0.73], p = .03, d = 0.44) and a trend towards less specific adverse events in the nocebo education group (mean difference: 0.36, 95% CI [− 0.02, 0.74], p = .07, d = 0.37). We found no difference in adverse events at 10-days follow-up, perceived control of adverse events, or tendency to misattribute non-specific symptoms to the chemotherapy.

Conclusions

This study provides first proof-of-concept evidence for the efficacy of a brief information session in preventing adverse events of chemotherapy. However, results regarding patient-reported outcomes cannot rule out response biases. Informing patients about the nocebo effect may be an innovative and clinically feasible intervention for reducing the burden of adverse events.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on March 27, 2018 to the German Clinical Trial Register (ID: DRKS00009501).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10089-2.

A Systematic Review of Conversion to Resectability in Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Chemotherapy Trials

OBJECTIVES

Metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) confers a significant survival benefit. We hypothesized that conversion to resectability (C2R) correlates with superior overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable mCRC.

METHODS

A prospectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42015024104) of randomized clinical trials published after 2003 was conducted. Exposure of interest was C2R with a primary outcome of OS. Clinical trials were classified based on difference in C2R between study arms (<2%, 2% to 2.9%, ≥3%). Generalized estimating equations were used to measure associations while adjusting for multiple observations from the same trial.

RESULTS

Of 2902 studies reviewed, 30 satisfied selection criteria (n=13,618 patients). Median C2R was 7.3% (interquartile range [IQR]: 5% to 12.9%), with maximum C2R in the FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab arm (28.6%). The median difference in C2R between 2 arms of the same study was 2.3% (IQR: 1.3% to 3.4%) with a maximum difference of 15.4% seen in FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI. Median OS for the entire patient cohort was 20.7 months (IQR: 18.9 to 22.7 mo), with a between group difference of 1.3 months (IQR: -1.2 to 3.6 mo). The median survival difference between the 2 study arms with <2% C2R difference was 0.8 months versus 1.6 months with ≥3% C2R rates . Increasing C2R had an incremental dose-effect response on OS ( P =0.021), and higher response rates correlated with C2R rates ( P =0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

C2R occurs infrequently and variably in clinical trials enrolling patients with unresectable mCRC. Prioritization of chemotherapeutic agents that enhance C2R might improve OS of patients.

Network Meta-analysis of First-Line Systemic Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Experimental Design

A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to and including July 15, 2019. We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was either chemotherapeutic agents (such as fluorouracil, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin) or antibodies targeting angiogenesis (such as bevacizumab) or agents that act on the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway (such as cetuximab and panitumumab) or studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or Grade 3 + adverse events (AEs). Using a random effect model, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to analyze the probability of optimal therapeutic regime obtained from direct comparisons with indirect evidences. We estimated hazard ratios for OS and PFS.

Results

A total of 30 RCTs comprising 12,146 mCRC patients with 25 different treatment strategies were included. The triple combination FOLFOXIRI [fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan] plus bevacizumab provided significant survival benefits with improved OS over all other treatments. The network meta-analysis also indicated a significant advantage of using FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in comparison to other treatment strategies for PFS. Besides, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab was associated with the well-tolerated adverse events.

Conclusions

Our study supported the use of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the best first-line regimen and potentially effective and safe strategy for the management of patients with mCRC.

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions.

RESULTS

Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3-4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

Analysis of first-line treatment in older patients with metastasic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRCm) in older patients treated in a tertiary hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was an observational and retrospective study, including patients aged 75 years or older, with CRCm, who received chemotherapy treatment in 2017. The main variables studied were type of treatment, Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), dose reductions, and treatment delays due to adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients (71.2% men) with a median age of 76 years were enrolled in this study. About 70% presented colon cancer, with the left colon being the most frequent location. They were treated with 9 different schemes, in most cases using polychemotherapy and biological agents. The median PFS and OS was 12 and 30 months, respectively. A total of 23/59 of patients started treatment at doses lower than recommended in the clinical practice guidelines. In terms of safety, 34/59 of patients had at least one dose reduction, and 30/59 suffered one treatment delay. The most frequent adverse reactions were asthenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhoea, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Our patients presented baseline clinical characteristics similar to the general adult population, with no tumour characteristics associated with advanced age. The efficacy and toxicity were similar to those in the clinical trials, although our patients had more dose reductions. Considering the heterogeneity of patients and in the absence of clinical trials in the older population, real-life studies can be very useful.

Selinexor (KPT-330), an Oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) Compound, in Combination with FOLFOX in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) - Final Results of the Phase I Trial SENTINEL

BACKGROUND

Selinexor is an oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export compound that specifically blocks Chromosomal Region Maintenance protein 1.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of selinexor plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.

METHODS

In this multicenter phase I trial, mCRC patients, eligible for oxaliplatin-based treatment, were enrolled to receive oral selinexor on days 1, 3, and 8 plus mFOLFOX6 every two weeks. Primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, overall response rate, progression free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 patients were enrolled, who had prior treatment with oxaliplatin (6/10), irinotecan (8/10), bevacizumab (6/10) or anti-EGFR therapy (5/10). Four consecutive patients received 40 mg selinexor plus mFOLFOX6. All four experienced dose-limiting toxicities and withdrew from the study after a median of two cycles. Thus, this dose level was regarded as toxic and no further patients were evaluated at this dose. Six patients were enrolled with 20 mg selinexor plus mFOLFOX6. Despite better tolerability, four patients withdrew (patient wish) after the first cycle and only two patients continued until disease progression. Most commonly reported treatment emergent adverse events were nausea (80%), diarrhea (70%), vomiting (60%), fatigue (60%), anorexia (40%), and impaired vision (40%). Due to the short treatment exposure, no relevant clinical activity was observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, selinexor on this dose schedule plus mFOLFOX6 was not tolerable. Other dosing schedules or combinations may be evaluated. Clinical trial identifier NCT02384850.

Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin as a Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase II Trial

Background: Although biliary tract cancer (BTC) has a very aggressive nature, some patients maintain a relatively good performance status after failure with first-line treatment of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC). Thus, tolerable, feasible, and useful second-line treatments are needed for these patients. We investigated the efficacy of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as a second-line therapy for patients with advanced BTC who failed first-line GC treatment. Methods: In this prospective, phase II trial, we investigated XELOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1) as a second-line treatment, given every 3 weeks, totaling 8 cycles in patients with metastatic BTC who failed first-line GC treatment. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: From December 2015 to November 2016, 50 patients with metastatic intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder (GB) cancer were enrolled. The regimen was well tolerated. Toxicities mainly consisted of grade 1 or 2 events, and thrombocytopenia and neuropathy had the highest incidence. In intent-to-treat analysis, one complete response (CR) and six partial responses (PRs) were recorded with XELOX treatment. The overall response rate and the disease control rate from the intent-to-treat analysis were 14% and 52%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 15.6 months, PFS after XELOX was a median of 15.4 weeks (95% CI, 8.5-22.3). This PFS value supported the statistical hypothesis of this study. The median overall survival was 32.7 weeks (95% CI, 21.4-43.9). Conclusion: This phase II trial showed that XELOX treatment was efficacious and had a tolerable toxicity profile in patients with advanced BTC who failed first-line treatment of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size-Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS).

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size-weighted coefficients of determination (R2), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS.

RESULTS

For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R2 value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti-epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for advanced biliary tract cancers: a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III, noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) has shown modest activity and tolerable toxicity in a phase II trial for biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Meanwhile, gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) has been the reference arm in recent phase II and III trials for BTCs. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of XELOX versus GEMOX as first-line therapy for advanced BCTs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, phase III, noninferiority trial, we randomly selected patients with metastatic BCTs to receive GEMOX (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1) or XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2, twice daily, on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) as first-line treatment, given every 3 weeks, totaling eight cycles. The primary end point was to prove the noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX in terms of 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate.

RESULTS

In total, 114 patients randomly received GEMOX and 108 randomly received XELOX. The median PFS was 5.3 months for the GEMOX group and 5.8 months for the XELOX group. The 6-month PFS rate was 44.5% for the GEMOX group and 46.7% for the XELOX group. The 95% confidence interval of the 6-month PFS rate difference between both groups was -12% to 16%, meeting the criteria for noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX. There was no difference in objective response (P=0.171) and median overall survival (P=0.131) between both groups. The most common grade three to four adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No patient died of treatment-related causes. The XELOX group had significantly lower frequencies of hospital visits than the GEMOX group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

XELOX showed significant noninferiority to GEMOX in terms of 6-month PFS rate. Thus, XELOX could be an alternative first-line treatment of BCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01470443).

Capecitabine Versus Continuous Infusion Fluorouracil for the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-analysis

OPINION STATEMENT

Nowadays, systemic chemotherapy with intravenous (IV) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) remains the most commonly prescribed treatment for metastatic colorectal cancers (CRC), in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. 5-FU can be administered through a bolus injection or continuous infusion (cIV), with the latter becoming the preferred administration method and standard of care in recent years. Oral fluoropyrimidines were developed to overcome challenges associated with the IV administration of 5-FU, among which capecitabine has become the most widely used one. However, although capecitabine and other oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are more convenient to administer, their efficacy and safety in comparison with IV 5-FU are not well understood. Results from recent randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses have been inconsistent. Safety, in particular, remains controversial. Our review, a first comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of cIV 5-FU with capecitabine, the two most widely used fluorouracil modalities in CRC, showed that cIV 5-FU-based regimens are associated with greater response rates compared with capecitabine-based regimens, with no difference in progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two. Furthermore, cIV 5-FU-based regimens showed an improved safety profile compared with capecitabine-based regimens. Our findings suggest that cIV 5-FU remains a more effective and safer modality of fluorouracil administration than capecitabine, thus providing supporting evidence to guide clinical practice in the management of colorectal cancer.

Predictive potential of tumour-stroma ratio on benefit from adjuvant bevacizumab in high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer

Background

The tumour–stroma ratio (TSR) has proven to be an independent prognostic factor in colon cancer.

methods

Haematoxylin eosin tissue slides of patients from the AVANT trial were microscopically scored for TSR and categorised as stroma -low or stroma -high. Scores were correlated to the primary and secondary endpoint disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Patients with stroma-high tumours (N = 339, 28%) had a significantly shorter DFS (p < 0.001) compared to stroma-low tumours (N = 824, 68%). In the bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 arm, DFS was significantly shorter compared to FOLFOX-4 in stroma-low tumours, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.94 (95% CI 1.24–3.04; p = 0.004). In stroma-high tumours a trend for better DFS was seen in bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 vs. FOLFOX-4 (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.35–1.07; p = 0.08)). For bevacizumab-XELOX vs. FOLFOX-4, this was not seen (stroma-low HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.64–1.77; p = 0.80); stroma-high HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.47–1.30; p = 0.35)). OS showed the same pattern for bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 vs. FOLFOX-4 with a HR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.36–4.71; p = 0.003) for stroma-low and HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.22–1.14; p = 0.10) for stroma-high tumours. For bevacizumab-XELOX vs. FOLFOX-4, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.55–2.31; p = 0.74) for stroma-low tumours and HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.37–1.51; p = 0.41) for stroma-high tumours.

Conclusions

This exploratory analysis suggests a significantly shorter DFS and OS in stroma-low tumours with addition of bevacizumab to intravenous oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, contrary to stroma-high tumours, where a beneficial trend is observed.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Thymidine phosphorylase: the unforeseen driver in colorectal cancer treatment?

5-Fluorouracil- and leucovorin-based chemotherapy regimens are the backbone of colorectal cancer treatment. The addition of oxaliplatin, irinotecan and monoclonal antibodies to this backbone has largely improved clinical outcomes, but has also led to new questions, with conflicting data frequently reported in studies. Thymidine phosphorylase (TP) is a nucleoside-metabolizing enzyme involved in 5-fluorouracil pharmacokinetics, as well as inflammatory responses, neoangiogenesis and apoptosis. TP expression is regulated by hypoxia, inflammatory cytokines and antitumoral agents. We hypothesize that TP could be the unforeseen driver in the conflicting data observed with different regimens commonly used in colorectal cancer treatment. Greater comprehension of the role of this enzyme in tumor progression and pyrimidine metabolism may lead to more accurate, patient-tailored therapy.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux^®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix^®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates.

LIMITATIONS

The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prognostic value of primary tumour resection in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer: Individual patient data analysis of first-line randomised trials from the ARCAD database

Indication for primary tumour resection (PTR) in asymptomatic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is unclear. Previous retrospective analyses suggest a survival benefit for patients who underwent PTR. The aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of PTR in patients with synchronous mCRC by analysis of recent large RCTs including systemic therapy with modern targeted agents. Individual patient data (IPD) of 3423 patients enrolled into 8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with first-line systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analysed. The number of patients with unresected synchronous mCRC, resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC was 710 (21%), 1705 (50%) and 1008 (29%), respectively. Adjusting for age, gender, performance status (PS) and prior chemotherapy, the unresected group had a significantly worse median overall survival (16.4 m) compared with the synchronous resected (22.2 m; hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4 m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, median progression-free survival was significantly worse for the unresected group compared with the synchronous resected (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66) groups. In a multivariate analysis, the observed associations remained significant. This largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date demonstrates an improved survival in synchronous mCRC patients after PTR. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Until results of ongoing RCTs are available, both upfront PTR followed by systemic treatment and upfront systemic treatment are considered appropriate treatment strategies.

Multicentric survey on dose reduction/interruption of cancer drug therapy in 12.472 patients: indicators of suspected adverse reactions

Antiblastic drugs have a high number of potential side-effects. Paradoxically, according to the National Network of Pharmacovigilance, the number of reported adverse reactions to these agents is proportionally lower than that registered for non antiblastic drugs. Critical phenomena such as treatment interruptions and significant dose reductions within the first two months of use may be indicators of adverse drug reactions. The aim of the present study was to increase our knowledge of pharmacovigilance to facilitate the actions taken to improve the risk-benefit profile of cancer drugs and, consequently, their safety. This retrospective observational survey was carried out on prescriptions from 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012. Dose reductions of more than 10% during the first 90 days of therapy were considered as a surrogate indicator of an adverse reaction. Dose interruptions during the first 60 days of therapy were taken into consideration. Of the12,472 patients 1,248 underwent a dose reduction. The drugs that most often required a dose reduction were paclitaxel and oxaliplatin (17.4% and 17.3%, respectively), docetaxel (14.8%), carboplatin (15%), fluorouracil (10.7%) and, among oral medications, capecitabine (6.9%). Of the 1896 patients treated with the same drugs, 9.7% interrupted treatment. Patients required a lower dose reduction than that reported by other authors. Around 15% of cases underwent a 30% dose reduction within three months of starting therapy, indicating a possible adverse reaction. Constant monitoring of dose prescription and continuous training of medical and nursing staff are clearly needed to increase awareness of the importance of reporting adverse events.

New Trends in the Therapeutic Approach to Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Important developments in chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer over the last years are reviewed, with an emphasis on the most recently published data from clinical trials. The systematic review of current literature was conducted involving Pubmed Central^® research and full articles were obtained and analyzed when appropriate. Fluorouracil still constitutes the backbone of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment; fluorouracil combination plus either irinotecan (FOLFIRI), oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine (CAPOX or XELOX) are chemotherapy protocols established as treatments producing similar outcomes. Actual treatment involves these chemotherapy protocols in combination with new molecular targeted drugs: bevacizumab and aflibercept (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody) and cetuximab and panitumumab (anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody for patients with wild type KRAS) which confer significant survival benefits in select patients as first- or second-line therapies. The factors affecting the decisions for one treatment over other are related to the patient and toxicity drug. Finally, metastatic colorectal cancer patients progressing after all standard therapies (maintaining a good ECOG performance status) could be candidates for further therapies such as regorafenib and TAS-102. Regarding the future, promising therapies are under development for the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment and several agents are currently being evaluated in different clinical trials.

Oral fluoropyrimidine versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) is one of the most commonly prescribed antineoplastic agents against gastric and colorectal cancers. Continuous infusion would be the optimal way of its administration, however, may usually cause thrombosis, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. Oral fluoropyrimidines would be an attractive alternative, but their efficiency and toxicities for the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer are still obscure as compared with infusion 5-Fu.

METHODS

Literature retrieval, trials selection and assessment, data collection, and statistic analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The outcome measures were tumor response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, comprising totally 15 154 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed similar overall outcome in terms of response rate (1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.12), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95%CI, 0.94-1.06), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92-1.01) between oral fluoropyrimidine-based and intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens in gastric and colorectal cancer patients. The risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stomatitis was more prominent in intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens; while more frequent grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and anorexia were detected in oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-fluoropyrimidines showed equivalent response and similar survival outcomes, but different toxicity profiles, as compared with intravenous 5-Fu. Thus, it would be a more convenient and adjustable alternative in treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer.

Combination adjuvant chemotherapy with targeted drugs for treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most fatal diseases in the world. The efficacy of present chemotherapy treatments are limited and the addition of targeted drugs have been put into practice. However, the preferred treatments among adjuvant chemotherapies still remain controversial and uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy of different adjuvant chemotherapies combined with or without targeted drugs to determine the optimal treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice. PubMed and Embase were searched for eligible articles and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. R (Version 3.2.5) software was utilized to conduct the Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were displayed using hazard ratios. And the rank probabilities of each treatment were evaluated using the surface under cumulative ranking curve. A total of 75 RCTs published after 1997 were included in the data analysis. Overall, FOLFIRI+ cetuximab was found to be the most effective treatment in terms of long-term survival and FOLFOX was the most effective pure chemotherapy treatment. The addition of targeted drugs will greatly improve the efficacy of chemotherapy. Targeted drug cetuximab combined with the chemotherapy regiment FOLFIRI is the preferable treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

Phase II Trial of Target-guided Personalized Chemotherapy in First-line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of personalizing treatment of patients with advanced untreated colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with untreated metastatic CRC, performance status 0-1, and candidates for systemic chemotherapy were eligible. Tumor tissues were analyzed for KRAS, BRAF, and PI3K mutations and expression of topoisomerase-1 (Topo-1), excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), thymidylate synthase (TS), and thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Patients with Topo-1 expression received irinotecan, whereas patients with negative Topo-1 and ERCC1 expression received oxaliplatin. Otherwise, patients received physician's choice of treatment. If TS was positive, no fluoropyrimidine was administered and if negative, 5-flurorouracil if TP was negative, or capecitabine if TP was positive. KRAS-mutated patients were treated with bevacizumab, whereas KRAS-native received cetuximab. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients were enrolled and 67 received personalized treatment including irinotecan (n=27), oxaliplatin (n=16), FOLFIRI (n=12), and FOLFOX (n=12). Thirty-eight patients received cetuximab and 29 bevacizumab. With a median follow-up time of 18.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-36), the overall median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9-9.7), representing a 12-month PFS rate of 36.5% (95% CI, 25-48). Overall clinical benefit, including response rate and disease stabilization, was 86% (95% CI, 73%-97%). The overall median survival was 21 months (95% CI, 11-40).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time target-guided personalized first-line treatment of patients with advanced CRC is feasible but, with the approached used, did not result in a clear improvement in PFS to warrant phase III testing.

Management of metastatic colorectal cancer patients: guidelines of the Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM)

In the past 15 years, the outcome for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has substantially improved owing to the availability of new cytotoxic and biological agents along with many significant advances in molecular selection, the use of personalised therapy and locoregional treatment, a more widespread sharing of specific professional experiences (multidisciplinary teams with oncologists, surgeons, radiotherapists, radiologists, biologists and pathologists), and the adoption of patient-centred healthcare strategies. The Italian Medical Oncology Association (AIOM) has developed evidence-based recommendations to help oncologists and all professionals involved in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in their daily clinical practice.

Prognosis of patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer given systemic therapy: an analysis of individual patient data from prospective randomised trials from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) database

BACKGROUND

Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have reduced overall survival compared with patients with metastatic colorectal cancer without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy.

METHODS

We analysed individual patient data for previously untreated patients enrolled in 14 phase 3 randomised trials done between 1997 and 2008. Trials were included if protocols explicitly pre-specified and solicited for patients with peritoneal involvement in the trial data collection process or had done a formal peritoneum-focused review of individual pre-treatment scans. We used stratified multivariable Cox models to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival, adjusting for other key clinical-pathological factors (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, primary tumour location [colon vs rectum], previous treatment, and baseline BMI). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival between populations with and without peritoneal metastases.

FINDINGS

Individual patient data were available for 10 553 patients. 9178 (87%) of 10 553 patients had non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (4385 with one site of metastasis, 4793 with two or more sites of metastasis), 194 (2%) patients had isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, and 1181 (11%) had peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer and other organ involvement. These groups were similar in age, ethnic origin, and use of targeted treatment. Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer were more likely than those with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer to be women (565 [41%] of 1371 vs 3312 [36%] of 9169 patients; p=0·0003), have colon primary tumours (1116 [84%] of 1334 patients vs 5603 [66%]; p<0·0001), and have performance status of 2 (136 [10%] vs 521 [6%]; p<0·0001). We recorded a higher proportion of patients with mutated BRAF in patients with peritoneal-only (eight [18%] of 44 patients with available data) and peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with other sites of metastasis (34 [12%] of 289), compared with patients with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (194 [9%] of 2230; p=0·028 comparing the three groups). Overall survival (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·91; p=0·003) was better in patients with isolated non-peritoneal sites than in those with isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival of patients with two of more non-peritoneal sites of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·25, p=0.69) and those with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer plus one other site of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·37, p=0·37) was similar to those with isolated peritoneal metastases. Compared with patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, those with peritoneal metastases and two or more additional sites of metastasis had the shortest survival (adjusted HR 1·40; CI 1·14-1·71; p=0·0011).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with other isolated sites of metastases. In patients with several sites of metastasis, poor survival is a function of both increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement. The pattern of metastasis and in particular, peritoneal involvement, results in prognostic heterogeneity of metastatic colorectal cancer.

FUNDING

None.

Knockdown of KLK11 inhibits cell proliferation and increases oxaliplatin sensitivity in human colorectal cancer

It has been reported that kallikrein 11 (KLK11) is crucially involved in the development and progression of various types of cancer. However, the molecular mechanisms that underlie the involvement of KLK11 in aberrant colorectal cancer (CRC) cell growth remain largely unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of KLK11 and the effects of KLK11 on oxaliplatin (L-OHP) chemosensitivity by knocking down KLK11 in LOVO and HCT-8 cells. Loss-of-function assays revealed KLK11 inhibition significantly inhibited growth and induced apoptosis of CRC cells in vitro. Notably, further experiments found that knockdown of KLK11 expression increased the L-OHP chemosensitivity of CRC cells. KLK11 inhibition of increased L-OHP-induced apoptosis may be associated with activation of caspase-3 cleavage and the apoptosis signaling pathway. The present results indicated that KLK11 may be an potential target of interest for future research into therapies for CRC.

A phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy in patients with inoperable adenocarcinoma of the gall bladder or biliary tract

BACKGROUND

Advanced biliary tract carcinomas are associated with a poor prognosis, and palliative chemotherapy has only modest benefit. This multi-centre phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with inoperable gall bladder or biliary tract cancer.

METHODS

This was a Phase II, non-randomised, two-stage Simon design, multi-centre study. Ethics approval was sought and obtained by the North West MREC, and then locally by the West Glasgow Hospitals Research Ethics Committee. Eligible patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the gall bladder or biliary tract and with adequate performance status, haematologic, renal, and hepatic function were treated with capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) po, twice daily, days 1-14) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) i.v., day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was to determine the objective tumour response rates (complete and partial). The secondary objectives included assessment of toxicity, progression-free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were recruited between July 2003 and December 2005. The regimen was well tolerated with no grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Grade 3/4 sensory neuropathy was observed in six patients. Two-thirds of patients received their chemotherapy without any dose delays. Overall response rate was 23.8% (95% CI 12.05-39.5%). Stable disease was observed in a further 13 patients (31%) and progressive disease observed in 12 (28.6%) of patients. The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI 2.8-6.4 months; Fig. 1) and the median overall survival 7.9 months (95% CI 5.3-10.4 months; Fig. 2). Fig. 1 Progression-free survival Fig. 2 Overall survival

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin has a lower disease control and shorter overall survival than the combination of cisplatin with gemcitabine which has subsequently become the standard of care in this disease. However, capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin does have modest activity in this disease, and can be considered as an alternative treatment option for patients in whom cisplatin and/or gemcitabine are contra-indicated.

Phase II study of oxaliplatin combined with S-1 and leucovorin (SOL) for Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin are widely used for patients with colorectal cancer. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of S-1, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (SOL) in the treatment of Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Eligible patients with untreated mCRC from four hospitals in China received intravenous oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) on day 1, oral S-1 twice daily (80-120 mg per day) on day 1-7, and leucovorin twice daily (50 mg per day) simultaneously with S-1, every 2 weeks.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty patients were enrolled in our study. In total, 296 cycles of SOL were administered. The overall response rate was 50.0%. At a median follow-up of 27 months, progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0-10.6 months) and 22.2 months (95% CI 15.1-29.3 months), respectively. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematological adverse events were diarrhea (n = 8, 20.0%), nausea (n = 3, 7.5%), and vomiting (n = 3, 7.5%). The most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were thrombocytopenia (n = 3, 7.5%), neutropenia (n = 1, 2.5%), and abnormal alanine transaminase/aspartate transaminase levels (n = 1, 2.5%). There was one treatment-related death.

CONCLUSIONS

The data indicate that the SOL regimen is effective and moderately tolerated in Chinese patients with mCRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

ChiCTR-TNRC-100000838.

Phase I/II trial of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Phase III studies have demonstrated the efficacy of FOLFOXIRI regimens (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan) with/without bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine that may be used instead of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. We evaluated a triple-chemotherapy regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, plus bevacizumab in 53 patients with mCRC. A Phase I study identified the maximum tolerated dose of irinotecan as 150 mg/m². Median follow-up in a subsequent Phase II study using this dose was 28 months (74% progressed). For all patients, a complete response was achieved in 4% and a partial response in 60%; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16 months and median overall survival (OS) was 28 months. Median PFS was longer for patients with an early treatment response (28 vs. 9 months for others; P = 0.024), or early tumor shrinkage (25 vs. 9 months for others; P = 0.006), or for patients suitable for surgical removal of metastases with curative intent (median not reached vs. 9 months for others; P = 0.001). Median OS was longer for patients with early tumor shrinkage (median not reached vs. 22 months for others; P = 0.006) or surgery (median not reached vs. 22 months for others, P = 0.002). K-ras mutations status did not influence PFS (P = 0.88) or OS (P = 0.82). Considerable Grade 3/4 toxicity was encountered (36% for diarrhea, 21% for vomiting and 17% for fatigue). In conclusion, the 3-weekly triple-chemotherapy regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, plus bevacizumab, was active in the first-line treatment of mCRC, although at the expense of a high level of toxicity.

A Muti-center, Randomized Phase II Study of Oxaliplatin and S-1 versus Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is considered one of the primary chemotherapy regimens for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Oxaliplatin plus S-1 (OS) has also demonstrated significant efficacy in CRC. We performed this randomized phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of XELOX versus OS as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic CRC.

Methods: Patients were assigned randomly to receive either OS or XELOX chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin was administered intravenously to all patients at a dose of 130 mg/m² on day 1. Patients received either S-1 (40 mg/m²) or capecitabine (1,000 mg/m²), twice a day for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest.

Results: Forty-two patients were assigned to the OS arm and 44 to the XELOX arm. The overall response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 18.8-47.2) in the OS arm and 40.9% (95% CI, 25.5-54.4) in the XELOX arm (P = 0.230). The disease control rate was significantly higher in the OS arm than the XELOX arm [92.9% (95% CI, 83.7-100) versus 77.3% (95% CI, 64.5-89.4), P = 0.044]. With a median follow up of 17.9 months, the median progression-free survival was 6.1 months in the OS arm and 7.4 months in the XELOX arm, respectively (P = 0. 599). The median survival time was 18.7 months in the OS arm and 20.1 months in the XELOX arm (P = 0.340). The most common grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was thrombocytopenia in both arms (19.0% for OS and 28.6% for XELOX). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed more frequently in the XELOX arm than the OS arm (16.7% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.026).

Conclusion: Both OS and XELOX were effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic CRC. Our results indicate that the combination of oxaliplatin and S-1 is a possible additional therapeutic strategy for such patients.

STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The management of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a comprehensive treatment strategy involving several lines of therapy, maintenance, salvage surgery, and treatment-free intervals. Besides chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan), molecular-targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept, regorafenib) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents (cetuximab, panitumumab) have become available. Ultimately, given the increasing cost of new active compounds, new strategy trials are needed to define the optimal use and the best sequencing of these agents. Such new clinical trials require alternative endpoints that can capture the effect of several treatment lines and be measured earlier than overall survival to help shorten the duration and reduce the size and cost of trials.

METHODS/DESIGN

STRATEGIC-1 is an international, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial designed to determine an optimally personalized treatment sequence of the available treatment modalities in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. Two standard treatment strategies are compared: first-line FOLFIRI-cetuximab, followed by oxaliplatin-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Arm A) vs. first-line OPTIMOX-bevacizumab, followed by irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab, and by an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody with or without irinotecan as third-line treatment (Arm B). The primary endpoint is duration of disease control. A total of 500 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies.

DISCUSSION

The STRATEGIC-1 trial is designed to give global information on the therapeutic sequences in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC that in turn is likely to have a significant impact on the management of this patient population. The trial is open for inclusion since August 2013.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

STRATEGIC-1 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01910610, 23 July, 2013. STRATEGIC-1 is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2013-001928-19, 25 April, 2013.

Postoperative Capecitabine with Concurrent Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy or Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Patients with Stage II and III Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival outcomes and toxicity of postoperative chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine and concurrent intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.

PATIENTS

We recruited 184 patients with pathologically proven, stage II or III rectal cancer. Following total mesorectal excision (TME), the patients were treated with capecitabine and concurrent IMRT/3D-CRT. The treatment regimen consisted of two cycles of oral capecitabine (1600 mg/m2/day), administered twice daily from day 1-14 of radiotherapy, followed by a 7-day rest. The median pelvic dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was administered after the chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival and locoregional control (LRC) rates were 85.1%, 80% and 95.4%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were observed in 28.3% of patients during treatment. Grade 3 or 4 late toxicity, including neurotoxicity or gastrointestinal toxicity, was only observed in nine patients (4.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that capecitabine chemotherapy with concurrent IMRT/3D-CRT following TME is safe, is well tolerated and achieves superior LRC and favorable survival rates, with acceptable toxicity.

Undetected toxicity risk in pharmacogenetic testing for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase

Fluoropyrimidines, the mainstay agents for the treatment of colorectal cancer, alone or as a part of combination therapies, cause severe adverse reactions in about 10%–30% of patients. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), a key enzyme in the catabolism of 5-fluorouracil, has been intensively investigated in relation to fluoropyrimidine toxicity, and several DPD gene (DPYD) polymorphisms are associated with decreased enzyme activity and increased risk of fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. In patients carrying non-functional DPYD variants (c.1905+1G>A, c.1679T>G, c.2846A>T), fluoropyrimidines should be avoided or reduced according to the patients’ homozygous or heterozygous status, respectively. For other common DPYD variants (c.496A>G, c.1129-5923C>G, c.1896T>C), conflicting data are reported and their use in clinical practice still needs to be validated. The high frequency of DPYD polymorphism and the lack of large prospective trials may explain differences in studies’ results. The epigenetic regulation of DPD expression has been recently investigated to explain the variable activity of the enzyme. DPYD promoter methylation and its regulation by microRNAs may affect the toxicity risk of fluoropyrimidines. The studies we reviewed indicate that pharmacogenetic testing is promising to direct personalised dosing of fluoropyrimidines, although further investigations are needed to establish the role of DPD in severe toxicity in patients treated for colorectal cancer.

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To investigate the correlation between Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) status and the therapeutic effects of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and the association between KRAS mutation and clinical outcome in mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR MoAbs was investigated. Ten RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Progression-free survival and overall survival were used to assess the strength of the relationship between KRAS mutation and clinical outcome.

RESULTS: In first-line treatment, survival benefit was confined to patients with wild-type KRAS. Chemotherapy regimens and angiogenesis inhibitor treatment influenced the results of the analysis. Wild-type KRAS mCRC patients did not seem to benefit from oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (PFS: HR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.70-1.10; OS: HR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.82-1.04). Clinical benefit in mCRC patients was limited to therapeutic regimens which included anti-EGFR MoAbs and fluorouracil-based therapy (PFS: HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.69-0.86; OS: HR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.75-0.95). When anti-EGFR MoAbs were used as second- or further-line treatment, clinical benefit was still confined to patients with wild-type KRAS.

CONCLUSION: KRAS status is a potential predictive marker of clinical benefit due to anti-EGFR MoAb therapy in mCRC patients.

Guidelines for diagnosis, staging and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer by Grupo Español Multidisciplinar en Cancer Digestivo (GEMCAD)

Abstract 

Advances in the care of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer arise from well-designed clinical trials. In the present document we address specific challenges in the design of clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer regarding staging and standard of care according to prognosis, as well as some relevant methodological issues.

Review of systemic therapies for locally advanced and metastatic rectal cancer

Rectal cancer, along with colon cancer, is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. Up to a quarter of patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis and 40% will develop metastatic disease. The past 10 years have been extremely exciting in the treatment of both locally advanced and metastatic rectal cancer (mRC). With the advent of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, increased numbers of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) are surviving longer and some are seeing their tumors shrink to sizes that allow for resection. The advent of biologics and monoclonal antibodies has propelled the treatment of mRC further than many could have hoped. Combined with regimens such as FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, median survival rates have been increased to an average of 23 months. However, the combinations of chemotherapy regimens seem endless for rectal cancer. We will review the major chemotherapies available for locally advanced and mRC as well as regimens currently under investigation such as FOLFOXIRI. We will also review vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors as single agents and in combination with traditional chemotherapy regimens.

Germline TYMS genotype is highly predictive in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal malignancies receiving capecitabine-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

This work was initiated to extend data on the effect of pharmacogenetics and chemotherapy pharmacokinetics (PK) on clinical outcome in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies.

METHODS

We assessed 44 gene polymorphisms in 16 genes (TYMS, MTHFR, GSTP1, GSTM1, GSTT1, DPYD, XRCC1, XRCC3, XPD, ERCC1, RECQ1, RAD54L, ABCB1, ABCC2, ABCG2 and UGT2B7) in 64 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving capecitabine/oxaliplatin and 76 patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) receiving epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine, respectively. Plasma concentrations of anticancer drugs were measured for up to 24 h, and results were submitted to population PK analysis. We calculated the association between gene polymorphisms, chemotherapy exposure, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and chemotherapy-related toxicity using appropriate statistical tests.

RESULTS

Patients with a low clearance of 5FU were at increased risk of neutropenia (P < 0.05) and hand-foot syndrome (P = 0.002). DPYD T85C, T1896C and A2846T mutant variants were associated with diarrhea (P < 0.05) and HFS (P < 0.02), and IVS14+1G>A additionally with diarrhea (P < 0.001). The TYMS 2R/3G, 3C/3G or 3G/3G promoter variants were associated with worse PFS in the CRC (HR = 2.0, P < 0.01) and GEC group (HR = 5.4, P < 0.001) and worse OS in the GEC group (HR = 4.7, P < 0.001). The GSTP1 A313G mutant variant was associated with a higher PFS (HR = 0.55, P = 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.60, P = 0.002) in the CRC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Germline polymorphisms of DPYD, TYMS and GSTP1 have a significant effect on toxicity and clinical outcome in patients receiving capecitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced colorectal or gastroesophageal cancer. These data should further be validated in prospective clinical studies.

Individual patient data analysis of progression-free survival versus overall survival as a first-line end point for metastatic colorectal cancer in modern randomized trials: findings from the analysis and research in cancers of the digestive system database

PURPOSE

Progression-free survival (PFS) has previously been established as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because mCRC treatment has advanced in the last decade with extended OS, this surrogacy requires re-examination.

METHODS

Individual patient data from 16,762 patients were available from 22 first-line mCRC studies conducted from 1997 to 2006; 12 of those studies tested antiangiogenic and/or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated by using R(2) statistics (the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the correlation) from weighted least squares regression of trial-specific hazard ratios estimated by using Cox and Copula models.

RESULTS

Forty-four percent of patients received a regimen that included biologic agents. Median first-line PFS was 8.3 months, and median OS was 18.2 months. The correlation between PFS and OS was modest (R(2), 0.45 to 0.69). Analyses limited to trials that tested treatments with biologic agents, nonstrategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy.

CONCLUSION

In modern mCRC trials, in which survival after the first progression exceeds time to first progression, a positive but modest correlation was observed between OS and PFS at both the patient and trial levels. This finding demonstrates the substantial variability in OS introduced by the number of lines of therapy and types of effective subsequent treatments and the associated challenge to the use of OS as an end point to assess the benefit attributable to a single line of therapy. PFS remains an appropriate primary end point for first-line mCRC trials to detect the direct treatment effect of new agents.

Outcome after liver resection in patients presenting with simultaneous hepatopulmonary colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

The most common sites of metastasis from colorectal cancer (CRC) are hepatic and pulmonary; they can present simultaneously (hepatic and pulmonary metastases) or sequentially (hepatic then pulmonary metastases, or vice versa). Simultaneous disease may be aggressive, and thus may be approached with caution by the clinician. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes following hepatic and pulmonary resection for simultaneously presenting metastatic CRC.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of a prospectively maintained database to identify patients presenting with simultaneous hepatopulmonary disease who underwent hepatic resection. Patients' electronic records were used to identify clinicopathological variables. The log rank test was used to determine survival, and χ(2) analysis to determine predictors of failure of intended treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were identified and underwent hepatic resection; median survival was 45·4 months and the 5-year survival rate 38 per cent. Twenty-two patients (37 per cent) did not have the intended pulmonary intervention owing to progression or recurrence of disease. Thirty-seven patients who progressed to hepatopulmonary resection had a median survival of 54·2 months (5-year survival rate 43 per cent). Those who had hepatic resection alone had a median survival of 24·0 months (5-year survival rate 30 per cent). Failure to progress to pulmonary resection was predicted by heavy nodal burden of primary colorectal disease and bilobar hepatic metastases. Redo pulmonary surgery following pulmonary recurrence did not confer a survival benefit.

CONCLUSION

Selected patients with simultaneous hepatopulmonary CRC metastases should be considered for attempted curative resection, but some patients may not receive the intended treatment owing to progression of pulmonary disease after hepatic resection.

DEK is a potential marker for aggressive phenotype and irinotecan-based therapy response in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

DEK is a transcription factor involved in stabilization of heterochromatin and cruciform structures. It plays an important role in development and progression of different types of cancer. This study aims to analyze the role of DEK in metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Baseline DEK expression was firstly quantified in 9 colorectal cell lines and normal mucosa by WB. SiRNA-mediated DEK inhibition was carried out for transient DEK silencing in DLD1 and SW620 to dissect its role in colorectal cancer aggressiveness. Irinotecan response assays were performed with SN38 over 24 hours and apoptosis was quantified by flow cytometry. Ex-vivo assay was carried out with 3 fresh tumour tissues taken from surgical resection and treated with SN38 for 24 hours. DEK expression was determined by immunohistochemistry in 67 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples from metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with irinotecan-based therapy as first-line treatment.

RESULTS

The DEK oncogene is overexpressed in all colorectal cancer cell lines. Knock-down of DEK on DLD1 and SW620 cell lines decreased cell migration and increased irinotecan-induced apoptosis. In addition, low DEK expression level predicted irinotecan-based chemotherapy response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with KRAS wild-type.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest DEK overexpression as a crucial event for the emergence of an aggressive phenotype in colorectal cancer and its potential role as biomarker for irinotecan response in those patients with KRAS wild-type status.

Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil: a meta-analysis of published trials

AIM

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine that can effectively replace infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for treatment of colorectal, gastric and breast cancer. This study aims to analyze the incidence and the relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were reviewed for RCTs that compared capecitabine with 5-FU for treatment of solid malignancies. The incidence and relative risk (RR) of grade 3/4 diarrhoea were estimated for each arm in the overall population and in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies and 15,761 patients were included. Among these 8303 and 7458 patients received capecitabine or 5-FU based therapies, respectively. In the overall populations severe diarrhoea was reported in 16.6% (95% CI 15.8, 17.4) and in 12.7% (95% CI 11.9, 13.4) of patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU-based therapies, respectively. The RR was 1.39 (95% CI 1.14, 1.69, P = 0.0010). In 14,899 CRC patients, the incidence of severe diarrhoea was 17.0% (95% CI 16.2, 17.9) and 12.9% (95% CI 12.1, 13.7), respectively, with a RR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.18, 1.81, P < 0.0001). In CRC patients treated with combined chemotherapy, the RR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.07, 1.82; P = 0.01) for patients receiving oxaliplatin and 2.35 (95% CI 1.76, 3.13; P < 0.0001) for patients receiving irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with capecitabine is characterized by an increased risk of severe diarrhoea, mainly in patients affected by CRC and treated with polichemotherapy. Combination treatment with irinotecan doubles the risk over 5-FU.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer in Thailand

BACKGROUND

In Thailand, there has been no economic evaluation study of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients after resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of all chemotherapy regimens currently used in Thailand compared with the adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease in patients with stage III colon cancer after resection.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the relevant lifetime costs and health outcomes of chemotherapy regimens based on a societal perspective using a Markov model.

RESULTS

The results suggested that the adjuvant 5-FU/LV plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease would be the most cost-effective chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjuvant FOLFOX and FOLFIRI as the first-line treatment for metastatic disease would be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 299,365 Thai baht per QALY gained based on a societal perspective if both prices of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI were decreased by 40%.

Integrating systemic and surgical approaches to treating metastatic colorectal cancer

Multiple new treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer have been developed over the past 2 decades, including conventional chemotherapy and agents directed against vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor. Combination regimens, integrated with surgical approaches, have led to an increase in median survival, and a minority of patients with resectable disease can survive for years. Clinical decision-making therefore requires a strategic, biomarker-based multidisciplinary approach to maximize life expectancy and quality of life. This review describes systemic approaches to the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, including integration with liver resection, other liver-directed therapies, and primary resection.

Colorectal cancer in Chinese patients: current and emerging treatment options

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in Hong Kong and its incidence is rising in economically developed Chinese cities, including Hong Kong and Shanghai. Several studies conducted in the People's Republic of China have characterized the unique molecular epidemiology of familial colorectal cancer syndromes and molecular biomarkers such as microsatellite instability and genetic mutations (eg, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, ERCC1) in Chinese populations. Interethnic differences in anticancer drug response and toxicity have been well described in many cancers, and this review examined the literature with regard to the tolerance of Chinese patients to commonly used chemotherapeutic regimens and targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Studies on the pharmacogenomic differences in drug metabolizing and DNA repair enzymes between Chinese, North Asians, and Caucasian patients were also reviewed.