Second-line treatment strategies for RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: A systematic review and Network Meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for second-line (IIL) treatment in KRAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not determined yet.

METHODS

A random-effect NMA of phase II/III RCTs was conducted to evaluate IIL treatment for all-RAS wt mCRC, comparing anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF, and chemotherapy (CT).

RESULTS

Overall, 11 RCTs (3613 patients) were included. In KRAS wt patients, PFS was improved with anti-VEGF (HR 0.43) and anti-EGFR (HR 0.63) vs CT. However, anti-VEGF based therapy had the highest likelihood of being ranked as the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 99.3%) and OS (SUCRA 99.4%). Bevacizumab-based treatment is most likely to be the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 89.1%) and OS (SUCRA 86.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Second line treatment with anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR improved PFS in mCRC patients, however, anti-VEGF based therapy, particularly CT plus bevacizumab, is the best treatment according to SUCRA in terms of PFS and OS.

How I treat stage II colon cancer patients

Stage II colon cancer (CC) is probably one of the best prognosis gastrointestinal tumors seen in our consultations, but often takes a lot of time for physicians to determine appropriate treatment because of the limited benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in these patients, together with the limited evidence in this situation. How to choose the best treatment for each individual patient is thus dependent on molecular (microsatellite instability/microsatellite stability status) and clinico-pathological features relevant enough to classify these tumors into low-, intermediate- and high-risk stage II disease and to choose an appropriate attitude for each of these subgroups. In practice, the first step in treatment decision making must be to assess the patient's status and comorbidities to see if the patient is eligible for an adjuvant treatment. Then, as fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are the corner stone of CC adjuvant treatment, screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency is mandatory in western countries. Finally, depending on the patient's characteristics and tumor risk stage, the strategy may be surveillance, adjuvant FP alone or oxaliplatin-based adjuvant CT. In the near future, new tools such as Immunoscore® (HalioDx; Luminy Biotech Enterprises, Marseille Cedex, France) and circulating tumor DNA may help to identify more precisely patients with minimal residual disease for more personalized adjuvant treatment approaches.

•

Stage II CC is a heterogeneous disease with a complex management due to the limited data and benefit of adjuvant CT.

•

Risk stratification through prognostic parameters is crucial to aid clinicians in determining the appropriate therapy.

•

Lymph node sampling <12 and pT4 are currently recognized as the major prognostic features associated with worse survival.

•

Adjuvant CT should be considered by incorporating prognostic features and balanced against patient's age and comorbidities.