The Real-Life Impact of mFOLFIRI-Based Chemotherapies on Elderly Patients-Should We Let It or Leave It?

The Real-Life Impact of Primary Tumor Resection of Synchronous Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-From a Clinical Oncologic Point of View

AIM

The complex medical care of synchronous metastatic colorectal (smCRC) patients requires prudent multidisciplinary planning and treatments due to various challenges caused by the primary tumor and its metastases. The role of primary tumor resection (PTR) is currently uncertain; strong arguments exist for and against it. We aimed to define its effect and find its best place in our therapeutic methodology.

METHOD

We performed retrospective data analysis to investigate the clinical course of 449 smCRC patients, considering treatment modalities and the location of the primary tumor and comparing the clinical results of the patients with or without PTR between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 at the Institute of Oncotherapy of the University of Pécs.

RESULTS

A total of 63.5% of the 449 smCRC patients had PTR. Comparing their data to those whose primary tumor remained intact (IPT), we observed significant differences in median progression-free survival with first-line chemotherapy (mPFS1) (301 vs. 259 days; p < 0.0001; 1 y PFS 39.2% vs. 26.6%; OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36-0.87)) and median overall survival (mOS) (760 vs. 495 days; p < 0.0001; 2 y OS 52.4 vs. 26.9%; OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.33-0.53)), respectively. However, in the PTR group, the average ECOG performance status was significantly better (0.98 vs. 1.1; p = 0.0456), and the use of molecularly targeted agents (MTA) (45.3 vs. 28.7%; p = 0.0005) and rate of metastasis ablation (MA) (21.8 vs. 1.2%; p < 0.0001) were also higher, which might explain the difference partially. Excluding the patients receiving MTA and MA from the comparison, the effect of PTR remained evident, as the mOS differences in the reduced PTR subgroup compared to the reduced IPT subgroup were still strongly significant (675 vs. 459 days; p = 0.0009; 2 y OS 45.9 vs. 24.1%; OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.79). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the site of the primary tumor also had a major impact on the outcome considering only the IPT patients; shorter mOS was observed in the extrapelvic IPT subgroup in contrast with the intrapelvic IPT group (422 vs. 584 days; p = 0.0026; 2 y OS 18.2 vs. 35.9%; OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.89)). Finally, as a remarkable finding, it should be emphasized that there were no differences in OS between the smCRC PTR subgroup and metachronous mCRC patients (mOS 760 vs. 710 days, p = 0.7504, 2 y OS OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.26)).

CONCLUSIONS

The role of PTR in smCRC is still not professionally justified. Our survey found that most patients had benefited from PTR. Nevertheless, further prospective trials are needed to clarify the optimal treatment sequence of smCRC patients and understand this cancer disease's inherent biology.

Seed and Soil: Consensus Molecular Subgroups (CMS) and Tumor Microenvironment Features Between Primary Lesions and Metastases of Different Organ Sites in Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) are mainly used for biological interpretability and clinical stratification of colorectal cancer (CRC) in primary tumors (PT) but few in metastases. The heterogeneity of CMS distribution in metastases and the concordance of CMS between PT and metastases still lack sufficient study. We used CMS to classify CRC metastases and combine it with histopathological analysis to explore differences between PT and distant metastases.

Patients and Methods

We obtained gene expression profiles for 942 PT samples from TCGA database (n=376) and GEO database (n=566), as well as 442 metastasis samples from GEO database. Among these, 765 PT samples and 442 metastasis samples were confidently identified with CMS using the "CMS classifier" and enrolled for analysis. Clinicopathological manifestation and CMS classification of CRC metastases were assessed with data from GEO, TCGA, and cBioPortal. Overall, 105 PT-metastasis pairs were extracted from 10 GEO datasets to assess CMS concordance. Tumor microenvironment (TME) features between PT and metastases were analyzed by immune-stromal infiltration with ESTIMATE and xCell algorithms. Finally, TME features were validated with multiplex immunohistochemistry in 27 PT-metastasis pairs we retrospectively collected.

Results

Up to 64% of CRC metastases exhibited concordant CMS groups with matched PT, and the TME of metastases was similar to that of PT. For most common distant metastases, liver metastases were predominantly CMS2 and lung and peritoneal metastases were mainly CMS4, highlighting "seed" of tumor cells of different CMS groups had a preference for metastasis to "soil" of specific organs. Compared with PT, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF) reduced in liver metastases, CD4+T cells and M2-like macrophages increased in lung metastases, and M2-like macrophages and CAF increased in peritoneal metastases.

Conclusion

Our findings underscore the importance of CMS-guided specific organ monitoring and treatment post-primary tumor surgery for patients. Differences in immune-stromal infiltration among different metastases provide targeted therapeutic opportunities for metastatic CRC.