Updated Management of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Scientific Advances Driving Modern Therapeutic Innovations

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and accounts for an estimated 1 million deaths annually worldwide. The liver is the most common site of metastatic spread from colorectal cancer, significantly driving both morbidity and mortality. Although remarkable advances have been made in recent years in the management for patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases, significant challenges remain in early detection, prevention of progression and recurrence, and in the development of more effective therapeutics. In 2017, our group held a multidisciplinary state-of-the-science symposium to discuss the rapidly evolving clinical and scientific advances in the field of colorectal liver metastases, including novel early detection and prognostic liquid biomarkers, identification of high-risk cohorts, advances in tumor-immune therapy, and different regional and systemic therapeutic strategies. Since that time, there have been scientific discoveries translating into therapeutic innovations addressing the current management challenges. These innovations are currently reshaping the treatment paradigms and spurring further scientific discovery. Herein, we present an updated discussion of both the scientific and clinical advances and future directions in the management of colorectal liver metastases, including adoptive T-cell therapies, novel blood-based biomarkers, and the role of the tumor microbiome. In addition, we provide a comprehensive overview detailing the role of modern multidisciplinary clinical approaches used in the management of patients with colorectal liver metastases, including considerations toward specific molecular tumor profiles identified on next generation sequencing, as well as quality of life implications for these innovative treatments.

Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews and 10 randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Doublet chemotherapy should be offered, or triplet therapy may be offered to patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable mCRC, on the basis of included studies of chemotherapy in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. In the first-line setting, pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mCRC and microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair tumors; chemotherapy and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair left-sided treatment-naive RAS wild-type mCRC; chemotherapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair RAS wild-type right-sided mCRC. Encorafenib plus cetuximab is recommended for patients with previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC that has progressed after at least one previous line of therapy. Cytoreductive surgery plus systemic chemotherapy may be recommended for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases; however, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is not recommended. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may be recommended following systemic therapy for patients with oligometastases of the liver who are not considered candidates for resection. Selective internal radiation therapy is not routinely recommended for patients with unilobar or bilobar metastases of the liver. Perioperative chemotherapy or surgery alone should be offered to patients with mCRC who are candidates for potentially curative resection of liver metastases. Multidisciplinary team management and shared decision making are recommended. Qualifying statements with further details related to implementation of guideline recommendations are also included.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

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.

FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus FOLFOX plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and ≥3 circulating tumour cells: the randomised phase III VISNÚ-1 trial

PURPOSE

5-Fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab is more effective than doublets plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, but is not widely used because of concerns about toxicity and lack of predictive biomarkers. This study was designed to explore the role of circulating tumour cell (CTC) count as a biomarker to select patients for therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

VISNÚ-1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III study in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, metastatic colorectal carcinoma and ≥3 CTC/7.5 mL blood. Patients received bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 165 mg/m², oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m² and 5-fluorouracil 3200 mg/m²) or FOLFOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² then 2400 mg/m²) by intravenous administration every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 349 patients (FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab, n=172; FOLFOX-bevacizumab, n=177). Median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI 11.2 to 14.0) with FOLFOXIRI bevacizumab and 9.3 months (95% CI 8.5 to 10.7) with FOLFOX-bevacizumab (stratified HR, 0.64; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82; p=0.0006). Grade≥3 adverse events were more common with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab 85.3% vs 75.1% with FOLFOX-bevacizumab (p=0.0178). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 8 (4.7%) and 6 (3.4%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX-bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and ≥3 CTCs at baseline, which indicate a poor prognosis. CTC count may be a useful non-invasive biomarker to assist with the selection of patients for intensive first-line therapy.

Treatments after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer. A literature review and evidence-based algorithm

Prolonging survival, achieving symptoms palliation and preserving quality of life are the primary therapeutic goals of treatments administered after disease progression in mCRC. Even if the impact of these therapies on the prognosis of affected patients is less relevant than the impact of the upfront treatment, tailoring the optimal second-line therapy is increasingly important. Several therapeutic options are available, and different factors including not only patient- and disease-related characteristics, but also the first-line treatment received (i.e., type, timing of disease progression, observed outcome and reported toxicities) may drive this choice. Herein, we describe the current state of the art in the landscape of treatments after progression in mCRC. Based on a critical review of the literature, we built a patient-oriented therapeutic algorithm, aiming to guide clinicians in their daily decision-making.

Treatments after progression to first-line FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies by GONO

Background

FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (bev) is a first-line regimen of proven activity and efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer. The upfront exposure to three cytotoxics raises concerns about the efficacy of treatments after progression.

Methods

We performed a pooled analysis of treatments after progression to upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev in patients enrolled in two randomised Phase 3 studies (TRIBE and TRIBE2) that compared FOLFOXIRI/bev to doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI)/bev. Response rate, progression-free survival (2nd PFS) and overall survival (2nd OS) during treatments after progression were assessed. The RECIST response in first line and the oxaliplatin and irinotecan-free interval (OIFI) were investigated as potential predictors of benefit from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction.

Results

Longer 2nd PFS was reported in patients receiving FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction compared to doublets ± bev or other treatments (6.1 versus 4.4 and 3.9 months, respectively, P = 0.013), and seems limited to patients achieving a response during first line (6.9 versus 4.2 and 4.7 months, respectively, P = 0.005) and an OIFI ≥ 4 months (7.2 versus 6.5 and 4.6 months, respectively, P = 0.045).

Conclusions

First-line FOLFOXIRI/bev does not impair the administration of effective second-line therapies. First-line response and longer OIFI seem associated with improved response and 2nd PFS from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction, without impacting 2nd OS.

Phase Ib study of FOLFOXIRI plus ramucirumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor2 monoclonal antibody, inhibits VEGF-A, VEGF-C, and VEGF-D binding and endothelial cell proliferation. We conducted a phase Ib study to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of fluorouracil, l-leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus ramucirumab.

METHODS

This phase Ib study investigated three dose levels of FOLFOXIRI plus ramucirumab (three dose levels of irinotecan and fluorouracil with fixed dose of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and ramucirumab 8 mg/kg on day 1, repeated every 2 weeks) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed during the first cycle.

RESULTS

A total of ten patients were enrolled. The first four patients received the treatment at dose level 0 (irinotecan 150 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2), and subsequent six patients were treated at dose level 1 (irinotecan 165 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 3200 mg/m2). No DLT was observed in the nine DLT-evaluable patients, which indicated that the RP2D was dose level 1. Grade 3 or worse adverse events included neutropenia (70%), hypertension (20%), and febrile neutropenia (10%). No treatment-related death was observed in any cycle. The overall response rate was 70%.

CONCLUSION

The RP2D of FOLFOXIRI plus ramucirumab was determined to be 8 mg/kg of ramucirumab, 165 mg/m2 of irinotecan, 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 of l-leucovorin, and 3200 mg/m2 of fluorouracil.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000023277.