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

Application of sintilimab combined with anlotinib hydrochloride in the clinical treatment of microsatellite stable colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common type of tumor with limited treatment options. Sintilimab and anlotinib hydrochloride are two extensively studied anticancer drugs.

AIM

To probe the clinical value of combining sintilimab with anlotinib hydrochloride in MSS CRC treatment.

METHODS

During the period spanning from April 2019 to April 2022, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital accommodated a cohort of 92 patients diagnosed with MSS CRC who were classified into two distinct groups in our study, the observation group and the control group. The control group was administered anlotinib hydrochloride as their designated therapy, whereas the observation group received the additional treatment of sintilimab in conjunction with the therapy assigned to the control group. The administration of treatment occurred in cycles consisting of a duration of 3 wk, and the evaluation of effectiveness took place subsequent to the completion of two consecutive cycles of treatment within both groups. A comparative analysis between the two groups was conducted to assess the short-term efficacy and ascertain the incidence of adverse events transpiring throughout the duration of the treatment period. Changes in the levels of carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199), CA125, and T cell subsets (CD4+, CD8+, CD4+/CD8+) as well as the assessment of the quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 were compared between the two groups prior to and subsequent to therapy. Finally, a 1-year follow-up was conducted for both groups of patients, and the survival status was recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

The short-term effectiveness displayed by the observation group surpassed that exhibited by the control group, with a statistically significant discrepancy (76.09% vs 50.00%), reaching a significance level denoted as P < 0.05. Following the administration of treatment, the observation group manifested a considerable reduction in numerous serum indicators, which were found to be lower than the corresponding pretreatment levels within the same group as well as the post-treatment levels observed in the control group (P < 0.05). Post-treatment, the T lymphocyte subset levels within the observation group demonstrated a remarkable amelioration, surpassing the corresponding pre-treatment levels observed within the same group as well as the post-treatment levels observed in the control group (P < 0.05). Subsequent to the therapeutic intervention, the observation group showcased a notable amelioration in the scores associated with multiple dimensions of life quality. These scores outperformed the pretreatment scores within the same group as well as the post-treatment scores observed in the control group (P < 0.05). The safety levels of drug use in the two group were comparable (19.57% vs 13.04%), and no distinct difference was observed upon comparison (P > 0.05). After the completion of treatment, both groups of patients underwent a 1-year follow-up outside the hospital. Throughout this period, 1 patient within the observation group and 2 patients within the control group became untraceable and were lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period of the observation group, 12 patients died, resulting in a survival rate of 73.33% (33/45), while in the control group, 21 patients died, resulting in a survival rate of 52.27% (23/44). The implementation of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a conspicuous contrast in survival rates exhibited by the two groups (log-rank = 4.710, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

The combination of sintilimab and anlotinib hydrochloride demonstrated favorable efficacy in the treatment of MSS CRC patients, leading to improvements in patient immunity and prognosis. Additionally, it exerted inhibitory effects on the expression of carcinoembryonic antigen, CA199, and CA125.

Conversion Strategy in Left-Sided RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients with Unresectable Liver-Limited Disease: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients frequently develop liver metastases. Different treatment strategies are available according to the timing of appearance, the burden of metastatic disease, and the performance status of the patient. Systemic treatment (ST) represents the cornerstone of metastatic disease management. However, in select cases, combined ST and surgical resection can lead to remarkable survival outcomes. In the present multicentric cohort study, we explored the efficacy of a conversion strategy in a selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type CRC patients with liver-limited metastatic disease. Methods: The primary endpoint was to compare survival outcomes of patients undergoing ST not leading to surgery, liver resection after conversion ST, and hepatic resection with perioperative ST. Furthermore, we explored survival outcomes depending on whether the case was discussed within a multidisciplinary team. Results: Between 2012 and 2020, data from 690 patients respecting the inclusion criteria were collected. Among these, 272 patients were deemed eligible for the analysis. The conversion rate was 24.1% of cases. Fifty-six (20.6%) patients undergoing surgical resection after induction treatment (i.e., ultimately resectable) had a significant survival advantage compared to those receiving systemic treatment not leading to surgery (176 pts, 64.7%) (5-year OS 60.8% and 11.7%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.273; 95% CI: 0.16−0.46; p < 0.001; 5-year PFS 22.2% and 6.3%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.447; 95% CI: 0.32−0.63; p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between ultimately resectable patients and those who had liver resection with perioperative systemic treatment (potentially resectable—40 pts) (5-year OS 71.1%, Log Rank test p = 0.311. HR = 0.671; 95% CI: 0.31−1.46; p = 0.314; 5-year PFS 25.7%, Log Rank test p = 0.305. HR = 0.782; 95% CI: 0.49−1.25; p = 0.306). Conclusions: In our selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type colorectal cancer patients with liver-limited disease, a conversion strategy was confirmed to provide a survival benefit. Patients not deemed surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis and patients judged resectable with perioperative systemic treatment have similar survival outcomes.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

Aim

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

Study design and methods

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1–2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

Results

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

Conclusion

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Concurrent RAS and RAS/BRAF V600E Variants in Colorectal Cancer: More Frequent Than Expected? A Case Report

The assessment of RAS and BRAF mutational status is one of the main steps in the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Multiple mutations in the BRAF and RAS pathway are described as a rare event, with concurrent variants in KRAS and BRAF genes observed in approximately 0.05% of mCRC cases. Here, we report data from a case series affected by high-risk stage III and stage IV CRC and tested for RAS and BRAF mutation, treated at our Medical Oncology Unit. The analysis of KRAS, NRAS (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, 146), and BRAF (codon 600) hotspot variants was performed in 161 CRC tumors from August 2018 to September 2021 and revealed three (1.8%) patients showing mutations in both KRAS and BRAF (V600E), including two cases with earlier CRC and one with metastatic disease. We also identified one patient (0.6%) with a mutation in both KRAS and NRAS genes and another one (0.6%) with a double KRAS mutation. Notably, the latter was characterized by aggressive behavior and poor clinical outcome. The mutational status, pathological features, and clinical history of these five CRC cases are described. Overall, this study case series adds evidence to the limited available literature concerning both the epidemiological and clinical aspects of CRC cases characterized by the presence of concurrent RAS/BRAF variants. Future multicentric studies will be required to increase the sample size and provide additional value to results observed so far in order to improve clinical management of this subgroup of CRC patients.

Post-Induction Management in Patients With Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Anti-EGFR-Based Doublet Regimens: A Multicentre Study

Background

Few data regarding post-induction management following first-line anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-based doublet regimens in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians’ attitude, and the safety and effectiveness of post-induction strategies in consecutive patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen, who did not experience disease progression within 6 months from induction initiation, at 21 Italian and 1 Spanish Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events, and objective response rate (ORR).

Results

At the data cutoff, among 686 consecutive patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet plus anti-EGFR as first-line regimen from March 2012 to October 2020, 355 eligible patients have been included in the present analysis. Among these, 118 (33.2%), 66 (18.6%), and 11 (3.1%) received a maintenance with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV)+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, and 5FU/LV, respectively, while 160 (45.1%) patients continued induction treatment (non-maintenance) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient decision, or completion of planned treatment. The median period of follow-up for the overall population was 33.7 months (95%CI = 28.9–35.6). The median PFS values of the 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR, anti-EGFR, 5FU/LV, and non-maintenance cohorts were 16.0 (95%CI = 14.3–17.7, 86 events), 13.0 (95%CI = 11.4–14.5, 56 events), 14.0 (95%CI = 8.1–20.0, 8 events), and 10.1 months (95%CI = 9.0–11.2, 136 events), respectively (p < 0.001). The median OS values were 39.6 (95%CI = 31.5–47.7, 43 events), 36.1 (95%CI = 31.6–40.7, 36 events), 39.5 (95%CI = 28.2–50.8, 4 events), and 25.1 months (95%CI = 22.6–27.6, 99 events), respectively (p < 0.001). After adjusting for key covariates, a statistically significant improvement in PFS in favor of 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.44–0.77, p < 0.001) and anti-EGFR (HR = 0.71, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.039) compared to the non-maintenance cohort was found. Compared to the non-maintenance cohort, OS was improved by 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR (HR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38–0.81, p = 0.002) and, with marginal significance, by anti-EGFR (HR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.51–0.98, p = 0.051). No difference was found in ORR. Any grade non-hematological and hematological events were generally higher in the non-maintenance compared to the maintenance cohorts.

Conclusion

Among the treatment strategies following an anti-EGFR-based doublet first-line induction regimen in patients affected by left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in a “real-life” setting, 5FU/LV+anti-EGFR resulted the most adopted, effective, and relatively safe regimen.

A multicenter study of skin toxicity management in patients with left-sided, RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based doublet regimen: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND

Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published.

AIM AND METHODS

To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months).

CONCLUSION

Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy.