Search

Background: There is ongoing discussion around the optimal course of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following the second line. Trifluridine/tipiracil (T) and regorafenib (R) have been the mainstay of therapy in this situation, as they both increased overall survival (OS) in comparison to a placebo. Despite the paucity of evidence, therapy rechallenge is also recognized as an option for practical use. In the third-line scenario of mCRC, we planned to investigate the survival outcomes using (T) and (R), both with and without prior rechallenge treatment. Materials and methods: Between 2012 and 2023, we examined the medical records of 1156 patients with refractory mCRC who were enrolled in the multicenter retrospective ReTrITA study. We then separated the patients into two cohorts based on the rechallenge therapy that was given before regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil at 17 Italian centres. Results: A total of 981 patients underwent T and/or R therapy, while 175 patients had therapy rechallenge before T and/or R. The median overall survival (mOS) for patients treated with T/R and R/T sequences in the rechallenge therapy cohort was 14.5 months and 17.6 months, respectively (p = 0.1955). A statistically significant survival benefit was observed in patients who received monotheraphy with R (mOS: 6 months) compared to the T group (mOS: 4.2 months) (p = 0.0332). In the same cohort, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) benefit was demonstrated in favour of the R/T group (11.3 months) vs. 9 months of the reverse sequence (p = 0.4004). In the no-rechallenge cohort, the mOS was statistically longer in the R/T sequence than in the T/R sequence (16.2 months vs. 12.3 months, respectively; p = 0.0014). In terms of the mPFS, we saw the same significant result for the adoption of R/T treatment (11.5 months vs. 8.4 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). The two monotherapy groups did not reveal any significant differences. Conclusions: This study suggests that rechallenge therapy may improve survival rates in the third-line treatment of mCRC, particularly if it is administered before sequential R/T treatment. This could allow for the extension of mCRC treatment choices until prospective studies are finished or randomised trials are performed.

Background: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. Materials and Methods: In 2012–2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. Results: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. Conclusions: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

BackgroundIn triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available.MethodsWe carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years.ResultsOverall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles.ConclusionThe CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research.