Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil beyond the Second Line: A Multicenter Retrospective Study from Saudi Arabia

Background

The outcome of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) beyond the second-line has not been studied in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this multicenter retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of FTD/TPI.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective analysis included five centers in Saudi Arabia. FTD/TPI was administered to all the patients beyond the oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens. The electronic medical records were reviewed, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined.

Results

The study included 100 patients with a mean age of 55.4 ± 11.8 years. The overall response to FTD/TPI was 4%. The median PFS was 4 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.487–4.513), and the median OS was 11 months (95% CI, 9.226–12.771). In a Cox regression analysis of the independent predictors for PFS, advanced stage of the disease (P = 0.037; HR, 2.614; and CI, 1.102–7.524), presence of lymph node metastasis (P = 0.018; HR, 3.664; and 95% CI, 1.187–8.650), and >2 metastatic sites (P = 0.020; HR, 1.723; and 95% CI, 1.089–2.727) were independent factors predicting disease progression. The Cox regression analysis confirmed that age ≥ 55 years (P = 0.046; HR, 1.667; and 95%, 1.097–3.100), advanced disease stage (P = 0.044; HR, 1.283; and 95% CI, 1.035–2.940), prior use of adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.037; HR, 0.892; and 95% CI, 0.481–0.994), liver metastasis (P = 0.025; HR, 2.015; and 95% CI, 1.091–3.720), >2 metastatic sites (P = 0.038; HR, 1.248; and 95% CI, 1.036–1.846), development of neutropenia after receiving first cycle of FTD/TPI (P = 0.042; HR, 1.505; and 95% CI, 1.064–2.167), and increased number of FTD/TPI cycles (P = 0.002; HR, 0.769; and 95% CI, 0.664–0.891) were independent variables for OS.

Conclusion

Treatment with FTD/TPI is feasible and effective in daily clinical practice in Saudi Arabian patients. The risk of progression increased with advanced disease stage, lymph node metastasis, bone metastasis, and metastasis to >2 sites. Age ≥ 55 years, advanced disease stage, liver metastasis, metastasis to >2 sites, neutropenia after the first cycle of FTD/TPI, and increased number of FTD/TPI cycles were independent factors predicting mortality.

Current Options for Third-line and Beyond Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Spanish TTD Group Expert Opinion

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health problem: it is the third most common cancer in men (746,000 new cases/year) and the second in women (614,000 new cases/year), representing the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. The survival of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has increased prominently in recent years, reaching a median of 25 to 30 months. A growing number of patients with mCRC are candidates to receive a treatment in third line or beyond, although the optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown. In this situation of refractoriness, there are several alternatives: (1) To administer sequentially the 2 oral drugs approved in this indication: trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, which have shown a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival with a different toxicity profile. (2) To administer cetuximab or panitumumab in treatment-naive patients with RAS wild type, which is increasingly rare because these drugs are usually indicated in first- or second-line. (3) To reuse drugs already administered that were discontinued owing to toxicity or progression (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, antiangiogenics, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor [if RAS wild-type]). High-quality evidence is limited, but this strategy is often used in routine clinical practice in the absence of alternative therapies especially in patients with good performance status. (4) To use specific treatments for very selected populations, such as trastuzumab/lapatinib in mCRC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, immunotherapy in microsatellite instability, intrahepatic therapies in limited disease or primarily located in the liver, although the main recommendation is to include patients in clinical trials.

Update on optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer from the AGITG expert meeting: ESMO congress 2019

Introduction: Outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer are improving, due to the tailoring of therapy enabled by better understanding of clinical behavior according to molecular subtype.Areas covered: A review of the literature and recent conference presentations was undertaken on the topic of systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This review summarizes expert discussion of the current evidence for therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on molecular subgrouping.Expert opinion: EGFR-targeted and VEGF-targeted antibodies are now routinely incorporated into treatment strategies for mCRC. EGFR-targeted antibodies are restricted to patients with extended RAS wild-type profiles, with evidence that they should be further restricted to patients with left-sided tumors. Clinically distinct treatment pathways based on tumor RAS, BRAF, HER2 and MMR status, are now clinically applicable. Evidence suggests therapy for additional subgroups will soon be defined; the most advanced being for patients with KRAS G12 C mutation and gene TRK fusion defects.

Maximising clinical benefit with adequate patient management beyond the second line in mCRC

New therapeutic options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and regorafenib. However, the optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use of each agent beyond the second line for patients with mCRC remains unclear and various factors may influence treatment decision. Available efficacy data suggest treatment with either trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib may be appropriate as both can extend patient survival. Thus, the safety profiles of each agent, along with patient performance status, are likely to determine treatment choice. The safety profiles of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib are markedly different: higher levels of non-haematological adverse events such as fatigue, diarrhoea, hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction are reported with regorafenib, while haematological events such as neutropaenia are more common with trifluridine/tipiracil. In general, neutropaenia is a manageable treatment-related toxicity, while hand-foot skin reaction can be troublesome for patients, affecting their ability to carry out everyday activities and get on with their lives, while also affecting treatment adherence. Thus, the occurrence of any potential adverse effects and patient adherence should be closely monitored at each clinic visit. As quality of life is an important issue for patients with mCRC, it is important to balance extended survival and the likely quality of this extended life. Likewise, discussing possible side effects along with treatment expectations with patients can greatly facilitate adherence to therapy, and ultimately improve patients’ quality of life and eventual clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in third-line and beyond for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in routine clinical practice: patterns of use and prognostic nomogram

INTRODUCTION

Trifluridine/tipiracil combination has shown a benefit over placebo in the treatment of patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination in the real-life setting at eight Galician centers in Spain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of a cohort of patients with mCRC in treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil within usual clinical practice who have been previously treated or are not considered candidates for treatment with available therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 160 mCRC patients were included. Our data showed that 11.9% of patients achieved disease control. Median progression-free survival was 2.75 months; at 5.66 months follow-up, median overall survival was 7.94 months. Asthenia and neutropenia (48.1% both) were the most frequent adverse events. Overall survival was lower in patients with ECOG 2, multiple metastatic sites, platelets count 350,000/µl, alkaline phosphatase > 500 IU/l, and carcinoembryonic antigen > 10 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study confirm the efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in chemorefractory mCRC patients. However, patients in clinical practice differ from patients in clinical trials. Due to this, prognostic factors have special importance to offer the best therapeutic approach.

Third- or Later-line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Reviewing Best Practice

An increasing number of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are able to receive 3 or more lines of therapy. Treatments in this setting can include regorafenib (an oral multikinase inhibitor), trifluridine/tipiracil hydrochloride (TAS-102), antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptor for patients with RAS wild-type tumors (if no prior exposure), and, where approved, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors for patients with microsatellite instability-high mCRC. Although guidelines describe the available treatment options, few insights are provided to guide selection and sequencing. In this article, we share expert opinion from diverse geographic regions, to offer guidance for best practice when selecting and managing third-line treatment for mCRC. Various factors, including performance status, age, and tumor sidedness, can be used to guide treatment selection. Biomarkers, such as RAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability, can be useful for treatment stratification. Management of adverse events, to maintain quality of life, is a key consideration and is crucial to best practice in this setting. Common toxicities associated with third-line treatments are hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue, diarrhea, and cytopenias. Patients who receive third-line and later-line treatments should be monitored for these events, especially during the first 2 cycles. Dose modifications can also be used to manage toxicities and to minimize the effect on quality of life, while maximizing treatment benefit. Clinical trials of emerging agents, new treatment combinations, and novel therapies continue the efforts to improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. Sharing expert opinions on best practice for treatment selection and management can ultimately improve outcomes for patients with mCRC.