Search

Background: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes., Methods: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS)., Results: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine., Conclusion: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LR reports consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Zymeworks. ACG reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, MSD, Roche, Servier; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from AstraZeneca, Eisai. SLC serves an advisory member for AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, BMS, Ipsen, and Hengrui, received research funds from MSD, Eisai, Ipsen, SIRTEX, and Zailab, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Roche, Ipsen, and MSD. TP received consulting fees from Bayer, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca; institutional research funding from Roche, Bayer, and AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Roche. CB received honoraria as speaker (Astrazeneca, Incyte, Servier) and consultant (Incyte, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca), received research funds (Avacta, Medannex, Servier) and her spouse is an employee of Astrazeneca. M. Ikeda reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Incyte, Lilly Japan, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, Nihon Servier, Taiho and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Delta-Fly Pharma, Invitae, J-Pharma, Merck biopharma, Merus N.V., MSD, Novartis, Nihon Servier, Ono, Syneos Health, and Rakuten Medical. GWP: Advisories and/or Speaker fees: Servier, Bayer, Roche Amgen, Merck, MSD, BMS, Sanofi, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Astellas, Pierre-Fabre, Incyte, Arcus, CECOG. F. F. has received travel support from Ipsen, Abbvie, Astrazeneca and speaker’s fees from AbbVie, MSD, Ipsen, Astrazeneca. LP: Advisory role: AstraZeneca, Servier, Travel expenses: AstraZeneca, Ipsen. GG: Consulting Fees: Astra Zeneca, MSD, Servier, Seagen, Bayer, Amgen, Novartis, Ipsen, BMS. Travel Expenses: Astra Zeneca, Servier, Bayer, Novartis. S.L. reports research funding (to Institution) from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daichii Sankyo, Hutchinson, Incyte, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Servier; personal honoraria as invited speaker from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Servier; participation in advisory board for Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Incyte, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Takeda, Rottapharm. JD received consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Need Inc., Ipsen, Lilly, MediMix, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Servier. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab., Materials and Methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line., Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46)., Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.C.G. is an advisor for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Eisai, and MSD. M.S. is an advisor for AMGEN, Eisai, MERCK, MSD, and SERVIER. M.K. received research grant from AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Medico’s Hirata, MSD, Otsuka, Sumitomo Dainippon, Takeda, and Taiho; received advisory consulting fee from BMS, Chugai, Eisai, MSD, Ono pharmaceutical, and Taiho; received lecture fee from Bayer, Chugai, EA Pharma, Eisai, and MSD. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Retrospective subgroup analyses of previous trials in the first-line therapy of RAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) suggested a predictive impact of primary tumour side on the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. Recently, new head-to-head trials of doublets/bevacizumab versus doublets/anti-EGFR, PARADIGM and CAIRO5 were presented., Patients and Methods: We searched for phase II and III trials comparing doublet chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR or bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for RAS wt mCRC patients. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and radical resection rate result in the overall study populations and, according to the primary side, were pooled together in a two-stage analysis with random effects and fixed effect models. The interaction between sidedness and treatment effect was then analysed., Results: We identified five trials (PEAK, CALGB/SWOG 80405, FIRE-3, PARADIGM and CAIRO5), including 2739 patients, 77% left- and 23% right-sided. Among patients with left-sided mCRC, the use of anti-EGFRs was associated with higher ORR (74% versus 62%, OR = 1.77 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.39-2.26-0.88], p < 0.0001), longer OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.88], p < 0.0001) and not significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.92, p = 0.19). Among patients with right-sided mCRC, the use of bevacizumab was associated with longer PFS (HR = 1.36 [95% CI 1.12-1.65], p = 0.002) and not significantly longer OS (HR = 1.17, p = 0.14). A subgroup analysis confirmed a significant interaction effect between the primary tumour side and treatment arm in terms of ORR (p = 0.02), PFS (p = 0.0004) and OS (p = 0.001). No differences in the radical resection rate were found according to treatment and sidedness., Conclusions: Our updated metanalysis corroborates the role of the primary tumour location in the choice of the upfront therapy for RAS wt mCRC patients, leading to strongly recommend anti-EGFRs in left-sided tumours and to prefer bevacizumab in the right-sided., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Molecular characteristics of squamous cell anal carcinoma (SCAC) are poorly explored. Immune checkpoint inhibitors showed limited activity in phase I/II trials, but predictive and prognostic biomarkers are lacking., Patients and Methods: In the phase II randomised trial CARACAS (NCT03944252), avelumab alone (Arm A) or with cetuximab (Arm B) was tested in pre-treated advanced SCAC , with overall response rate being the primary end-point. On pre-treatment tumour tissue samples, we assessed Human papillomavirus status, programmed-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, mismatch repair proteins expression, tumour mutational burden (TMB) and comprehensive genomic profiling by FoundationOne CDx. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes were characterised on haematoxylin-eosine-stained samples. Primary objective was to describe response to immunotherapy in the CARACAS trial population according to molecular and histological characteristics. Secondary objectives were to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to molecular biomarkers., Results: High PD-L1 (>40 with combined positive score) was significantly more frequent in patients with disease control (p = 0.0109). High TMB (>10 mutations per megabase) was related to better OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.09; 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.01-0.68; p = 0.019) and PFS (HR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.15-1.27; p = 0.129). High expression of PD-L1 conferred longer OS (HR = 0.46; 95%CI = 0.19-1.08; p = 0.075) and PFS (HR = 0.42; 95%CI = 0.20-0.92; p = 0.03). Neither OS (HR = 1.30; 95%CI = 0.72-2.36; p = 0.39) or PFS (HR = 1.31; 95%CI = 0.74-2.31; p = 0.357) was affected by high (>1.2) Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes count. High TMB and PD-L1identified patients were with significantly better OS (HR = 0.33; 95%CI = 0.13-0.81; p = 0.015) and PFS (HR = 0.48; 95%CI = 0.23-1.00; p = 0.015)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, TranslaCARACAS is the first study to document prognostic role of TMB and PD-L1 in advanced SCAC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario., Methods: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point., Results: The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events., Conclusion: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. L Rimassa has received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. A.C.G. has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, Bayer, and is an advisor for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and GSK. M.K. has received grants from Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Takeda, Sumitomo Dainippon-Sumitomo, Daiichi Sankyo, AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, and Bayer, and is an adviser for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and ONO Pharmaceutical. F.P. has received consulting or lecture fees from Consulting or lecture fees in the last two years from: Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, EISAI, ESAOTE, Exact Sciences, IPSEN; MSD; Roche, Samsung, Tiziana Life Sciences. F.F received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Abbvie, Eisai and CSL Behring and received travel support from Ipsen. T.P. consults for and received grants from Bayer. She also received grants from Lilly and Roche. There are no conflicts of interest among the other authors., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: IMbrave150 has established the superiority of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: We generated a prospectively maintained database including patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC across Europe, Asia and USA. Clinico-pathologic characteristics were assessed for their prognostic influence on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in univariable and multivariate analyses. Overall response rate by RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) per CTCAE v.5.0 were reported., Results: Out of 433 patients, 296 Child-Pugh A and ECOG performance status01 patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first line and were included. Patients were mostly male (82.7%), cirrhotic (75%) with history of viral hepatitis (65.9%). Overall, 68.9% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer C-stage HCC with portal vein tumour thrombosis (PVTT, 35%) and extrahepatic spread (EHS, 51.7%). After a median follow-up of 10.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.4-10.4), median OS and PFS were 15.7 (95% CI: 14.5-NE) and 6.9 months (95% CI: 6.1-8.3), respectively. In the response-evaluable patients (n = 273), overall response rate was 30.8%. Overall, 221 patients (74.6%) developed TRAEs, with 70 (23.6%) reporting grade 3 or higher TRAEs; 25 (8.4%) patients had bleeding events. OS was independently associated with baseline Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and PVTT. Shorter PFS was associated with AFP≥ 400 ng/ml, worse ALBI and presence of EHS., Conclusion: This global observational study confirms the reproducible safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in routine clinical practice. Within Child-Pugh-A criteria, the presence of PVTT and higher ALBI grade identify patients with poorer survival., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AD received educational support for congress attend-ance from Roche. JvF received advisory board fees from Roche. HW received lecture fees and advisory board honoraria from Roche, Bayer, Ipsen, Eisai, BMS. VEG is employee and shareholder of F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. AS received research grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Clovis, KAHR medical, Actuate therapeutics, Incyte Corp. and Advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Exelixis, and Pfizer. PRG reports a consulting or advisory role and received honoraria from AdaptImmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Sirtex; has been on a speakers bureau for straZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Sirtex; has received research funding from Bayer and Roche; has provided expert testimony for Lilly; and has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche. DB has received lecture and speaker fees from Bayer Healthcare, the Falk Foundation Germany and consulting fees from Boston Scientific. AV reports honoraria for speaker, consultancy and advisory role from Roche, AstraZeneca, EISAI, Bayer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Incyte, PierreFabre, Ipsen, and Sanofi. BS received travel support from Gilead, Ipsen and AbbVie. NP received consulting fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier; lectures fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi; travel expenses from Amgen, ArQule; and institutional research funding from Basilea, Merck Serono, Servier. TP received consulting fees from Bayer; and institutional research funding from Bayer, Lilly, Roche. RS received consulting fees for EISAI, Roche, Bayer, SIRTEX, Novartis; research funding (to institution) from Incyte, Novartis, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bayer and Boston Scientific. MP is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he received speaker honoraria fromBayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he received travel support from Bayer and BMS. AC received con-sulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Astellas. LR received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. AGS has served on advisory boards or as consultant for Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis, BMS, Roche, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, FujiFilm Medical Sciences, GRAIL. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra, Mursla, Exact Sciences and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. VEG is employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organisation or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilised in the production of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The availability of new drugs in the chemo-refractory setting opened the way to the concepts of treatment sequencing in mCRC. However, the impact of later line options in the therapeutic route of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and the attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy are not well established., Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of treatments administered after the 2nd disease progression in 1187 mCRC patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies, where upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev was compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI/bev. Per each line, we assessed the attrition rate, treatment choices and clinical outcomes., Results: 625 (53%), 326 (27%) and 136 (11%) patients received a systemic treatment after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th disease progression, respectively. PFS and objective response rate decreased along each line. RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received more likely a 3rd line (75%) compared with RAS (66%, p = 0.005) and BRAF (66%, p = 0.11) mutants. In 3rd line, 67% of RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received anti-EGFRs, achieving longer PFS with respect to other therapies (6.4 vs 3.9 months, p = 0.02). A trend towards longer 3rd line OS was observed in TRIBE patients (9.9 vs 7.2 months, p = 0.05)., Conclusions: A relevant attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy is evident, and more pronounced in RAS and BRAF mutated patients, thus highlighting the relevance of the choice of the upfront treatment. The efficacy of anti-EGFR agents among RAS/BRAF wild-type patients unexposed to anti-EGFRs is higher than other options. The reintroduction of chemotherapy remains frequent in clinical practice., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials. gov Identifiers NCT00719797, NCT02339116., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Daniele Rossini: Honoraria – Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Sara Lonardi: Consulting or Advisory Role – Amgen, MerckSerono, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, MSD; Speakers' Bureau – Roche,Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, MerckSerono, Pierre Fabre, GSK, Amgen; Research Funding – Amgen, MerckSerono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Filippo Pietrantonio: Speakers' Bureau – Amgen, MerckSerono, Sanofi, Lilly, Bayer, Servier, AstraZeneca, MSD; Research Funding – AstraZeneca, BMS. Alberto Zaniboni: Speakers' bureau – Sanofi, Bayer, MerckSerono, Servier, MSD, Amgen. Gianluca Masi: Honoraria – Amgen, Roche, Bayer, Merck, Sirtex. Chiara Cremolini: Honoraria – Amgen, Bayer, Roche, Servier; Consulting or Advisory Role – Amgen, Bayer, Roche. Speakers' Bureau – Servier; Research Funding - Merck. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We performed a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies to assess the efficacy and safety of the intensification of upfront chemotherapy backbone - from doublets to the triplet FOLFOXIRI - in combination with bevacizumab (bev) in patients with early-onset metastatic colorectal cancer (EO-mCRC; aged <50 years) and to explore whether EO-mCRCs have a peculiar tumour genomic profiling., Materials and Methods: Subgroup analyses according to age (<50 versus ≥50 years) and treatment (FOLFOXIRI/bev versus doublets/bev) were carried out for rates of any grade and grade ≥3 (≥G3) overall and singular adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). Tumour genomic profiling was obtained using a DNA-based next-generation sequencing platform., Results: Of 1187 patients included, 194 (16%) patients were aged <50 years. Females were more frequently diagnosed with EO-mCRC (P = 0.04). Patients aged <50 years showed a lower risk of ≥G3 neutropenia (P = 0.07), diarrhoea (P = 0.04), asthenia (P = 0.008) and a higher risk of any grade nausea (P < 0.01) and vomiting (P < 0.01). Patients receiving FOLFOXIRI/bev more frequently experienced ≥G3 chemotherapy-related adverse events respect to doublets/bev, regardless of age (P interaction  = 0.60). FOLFOXIRI/bev was associated to a lower incidence of neutropenia (P = 0.04) and asthenia (P = 0.01) in patients <50 years old, than those aged ≥50 years. PFS, OS and ORR did not differ according to age (PFS P = 0.81, OS P = 0.44, ORR P = 0.50) and no interaction between age and the benefit from the intensification of upfront chemotherapy was observed (PFS P interaction  = 0.72, OS P interaction  = 0.54, ORR P interaction  = 0.65). Genomic profiling was assessed in 296 patients, showing an enrichment of FBXW7 and POLE mutations in EO-mCRC., Conclusions: Upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev shows a favourable efficacy/safety balance in EO-mCRC., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers NCT00719797, NCT0233-9116., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: No biomarkers are currently available to predict the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The multicohort REGOLAND study aims at exploring and validating circulating markers potentially able to predict benefit from regorafenib in this setting., Material and Methods: In the retrospective 'regorafenib exploratory cohort', including 105 patients treated with regorafenib, baseline (d1) plasma levels of angiogenesis-related biomarkers and their early modulation after 15 days (d15) of treatment were investigated for correlation with clinical outcome. Based on a pre-specified statistical hypothesis, main retrospective findings were prospectively challenged in the 'regorafenib validation cohort', including 100 patients treated with regorafenib. Prospectively validated putative biomarkers were then assessed in the control 'FTD/TPI cohort', including 93 patients treated with FTD/TPI., Results: In the 'regorafenib exploratory cohort', the early (d15) increase of Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) was associated with longer progression-free survival (HR:0.57 [95%CI:0.38-0.88], P = 0.004) and a trend towards longer OS (HR:0.74 [95%CI:0.48-1.14], P = 0.165), than the early decrease. Similar results were prospectively confirmed in the 'regorafenib validation cohort' (HR for progression-free survival:0.72 [95%CI:0.48-1.08], P = 0.095; HR for OS:0.77 [95%CI:0.51-1.16], P = 0.204). No predictive impact was shown for the early modulation of Ang-2 in the 'FTD/TPI cohort'. High baseline Ang-2 levels predict poor prognosis in all the investigated cohorts, independently of other clinical prognostic variables., Conclusions: The early modulation of circulating Ang-2 predicts the efficacy of regorafenib. Baseline Ang-2 plasma levels are an independent prognostic biomarker in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: C.C. reports personal fees from Roche, Amgen, Bayer, and Servier; research funding from Merck Serono; and a consulting or advisory role with Roche, Bayer, Amgen. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We performed a comprehensive genomic profiling of tumour samples from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients enrolled in the TRIBE2 study to assess the concordance among different techniques to evaluate mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) status, to characterize tumours according to the tumour mutational burden (TMB) and explore the clinical relevance of different TMB cutpoints, and to investigate the prevalence of alterations actionable with targeted approaches or immune checkpoint inhibitors., Material and Methods: Tumour samples of 296 (44%) of 679 enrolled patients underwent 592-gene DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS). MMR status was assessed by immunohistochemistry (MMR-IHC), and MSI status was assessed by NGS (MSI-NGS). TMB was defined as low, intermediate, or high if <7, 7-16, or ≥17 mutations/megabase (mut/Mb) were found. The performance of TMB to predict MSI status was tested by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Actionable alterations included BRAF V600E, KRAS G12C, POLE mutations, HER2 amplification and mutations, and MSI-H., Results: Of 216 paired cases, concordance between MMR-IHC and MSI-NGS was 98.6%. Among 11 TMB-high tumours, eight (73%) were MSI-H and three (27%) were microsatellite stable and harboured POLE or MSH6 mutations. High TMB had a trend for a better outcome than low/intermediate TMB (hazard ratio for overall survival 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.28-1.33; P = 0.106). No interaction effect between TMB and treatment arm was observed. Seventeen mut/Mb was identified as the optimal threshold of TMB for predicting MSI status. Actionable alterations were found in 62 (21%) of 296 patients., Conclusions: Genomic profiling provides an overview of the genomic landscape of mCRC in a single analysis, including actionable targets and markers of immune sensitivity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: G.T. declares an advisory role with Lilly, Novartis, and Amgen. A.F. reports personal fees from Roche, Amgen, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, and Sanofi; and research funding from Roche, Amgen, and Merck Serono. C.Cr. reports personal fees from Roche, Amgen, Bayer, and Servier; research funding from Merck Serono; and a consulting or advisory role with Roche, Bayer, Amgen. All other authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recent data from the TRIBE2 study have failed to suggest a higher magnitude of benefit from upfront FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as previously reported in the TRIBE study., Patients and Methods: Clinical characteristics and gene expression signatures of patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC enrolled in the TRIBE2 study were evaluated with the aim of understanding that patients may derive benefit from the intensification of the upfront chemotherapy., Results: Of 46 BRAF-mutant tumour samples analysed, 24 (52%) and 22 (48%) were classified as BM1 and BM2, respectively, and 27 (59%) and 19 (41%) were assigned to ligand-independent (LI) and ligand-dependent (LD) Wnt pathway subgroups, respectively. No prognostic impact was shown for both BM1/BM2 and LI/LD subtypes. No interaction was evident between BM1/BM2 or LI/LD signatures and the benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. Significant interaction effect was evident in terms of progression-free survival between treatment arm and primary tumour sidedness (P = 0.05) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Gene expression analysis failed to identify patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC candidate to upfront FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab. ECOG-PS >0 and left-sidedness seem associated with no benefit from the intensified treatment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement G.T. has a consulting or advisory role at Novartis, Amgen, and Lilly. A.F. received honoraria from Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Roche, and Servier; has consulting or advisory role at Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Roche, and Servier; received research funding from Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Merck (Inst), MSD (Inst), Roche (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), and Servier (Inst); received travel and accommodation expenses from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche, and Servier. C.C. received honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Roche, and Servier; has consulting or advisory role at Amgen, Bayer, MSD, and Roche; was a Speakers Bureau member at Servier; received research funding from Bayer, Merck, and Servier; received travel and accommodation expenses from Roche and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Alternating induction and maintenance phases is a common strategy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Metronomic chemotherapy (metroCT) may represent a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone for maximising bevacizumab effect during maintenance. The MOMA trial was designed to compare metroCT plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone as maintenance following 4 months of induction with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab., Patients and Methods: In this phase II study, patients with unresectable mCRC were randomised to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab (arm A) or the same regimen followed by bevacizumab plus metroCT (capecitabine 500 mg/three times per day and cyclophosphamide 50 mg/die, arm B) until disease progression. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). According to the Rubinstein and Korn's design, to detect a hazard ratio[HR] of 0.75 favouring arm B, with 1 sided-alpha and beta errors of 15% and 80%, 173 events and 222 patients were required., Results: Between May 2012 and March 2015, 232 patients, mostly with RAS (65%) or BRAF (9%) mutant tumours, were randomised in 16 Italian centres. At a median follow-up of 47.8 months, 210 and 164 progression and death events were registered. The primary end-point was not met. Median PFS was 10.3 and 9.4 months in arm B and A, respectively (HR: 0.94 [70% confidence interval {CI}: 0.82-1.09], p = 0.680). No significant differences were reported in terms of overall survival (OS) (median OS arm B/A: 22.5/28 months; HR: 1.16 [95%CI: 0.99-1.37], p = 0.336). Response rate with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab was 63% (arm B/A: 58%/68%). In the liver-limited subgroup, the secondary resection rate was 49% (arm B/A: 45%/55%)., Conclusions: The addition of metroCT to maintenance with bevacizumab does not significantly improve PFS of mCRC patients. The activity of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is confirmed in a population with high prevalence of RAS/BRAF mutations treated with a 4-months induction., Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02271464., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) does not achieve effective control of distant metastases. Induction chemotherapy is a promising strategy, and bevacizumab (BV) could improve the results of CRT. 5-Fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus BV is a treatment option in metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluate feasibility and efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment comprising induction FOLFOXIRI plus BV followed by CRT with fluoropyrimidines plus BV., Methods: In this phase II single-arm trial, patients node-positive or clinical T4 or high-risk T3 LARC underwent 6 cycles of induction FOLFOXIRI plus BV, followed by CRT (50.4 Gy plus concomitant capecitabine) and BV (5 mg/kg on days 1, 15 and 28). Surgery was planned 8 weeks after completion of CRT. Primary end-point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS)., Results: We enrolled 49 patients: All but one (withdrewing consent after enrolment) were included in the per-protocol analyses. The study met its primary end-point: 36 patients were free of recurrence at 2 years (2-y DFS: 80.45%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.79-82.10). Forty-four patients underwent surgery; pathologic complete response rate was 36.4%. Forty-six patients completed induction: neutropenia (41.6%) and diarrhoea (12.5%) were main G3/4 toxicities. Forty-five patients received CRT, but the protocol was amended and the capecitabine schedule during CRT was slightly modified after 13 patients due to the incidence of G3 hand-foot syndrome and proctitis (23.1%). After amendment, no severe events during CRT were reported., Conclusions: FOLFOXIRI plus BV followed by CRT plus BV is feasible and active. Results in terms of DFS suggest that this strategy may improve distant disease control in LARC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Secondary resection is a chance of cure for a subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with unresectable liver-limited disease. Medical treatment has a dual goal: to induce tumour shrinkage and to prevent disease relapse. The aims of the present analysis were to assess the efficacy of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in this setting, and to investigate whether this regimen could revert the poor prognosis of high-risk patients defined by clinical and molecular factors. We performed a pooled analysis of patients with unresectable and liver-limited mCRC, treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in three prospective clinical trials by Gruppo Oncologico del Nord Ovest. 205 (37.9%) patients with liver-limited disease were selected, out of 541 treated patients. Liver metastases were synchronous, ≥4 and bilobar in 90%, 61%, and 79% of cases, respectively. The largest diameter was >5 cm in 42% of cases, and ≥6 segments were involved in 25%. Seventy-four patients (36.1%) underwent R0 or R1 resection of metastases. R2 resections were performed in 17 cases (8.3%). Having <6 involved segments (p < 0.001) and achieving RECIST response (p = 0.019) were associated with higher chances of resection. R0/R1 resected patients had significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) (18.1 versus 10.7 months, HR: 0.48 [0.35-0.66], p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (44.3 versus 24.4 months, HR: 0.32 [0.22-0.48], p < 0.001) compared with other patients, both in the univariate and multivariate analyses (PFS p = 0.025; OS p < 0.001). The 5-year PFS and OS rate in R0 resected patients were 12% and 43%, respectively. Neither negative baseline characteristics nor high clinical risk scores or RAS/BRAF mutations were associated with poor post-resection outcomes. In conclusion, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab demonstrates efficacy in the conversion setting with considerable long-term outcome results independent of clinical and molecular prognostic factors (NCT00719797, NCT01163396 and NCT02271464)., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: BRAF V600E mutation plays a negative prognostic role in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), leading to a median Progression Free Survival (PFS) of 4-6months with first-line conventional treatments. Our group recently reported in a retrospective exploratory analysis of a phase II trial that FOLFOXIRI (5-FU/LV+Oxaliplatin+Irinotecan) plus bevacizumab might allow to achieve remarkable results in terms of PFS and Overall Survival (OS) also in this poor-prognosis subgroup. The aim of this work was to prospectively validate our retrospective finding., Patients and Methods: This phase II trial was designed to detect an increase in 6month-Progression Free Rate (6m-PFR) from 45% to 80% in a population of BRAF mutant mCRC patients treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab. Secondary end-points were PFS, OS, response rate (RR) and the analysis of outcome parameters in the pooled population consisting of both retrospectively and prospectively included patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01437618., Results: Two-hundred-fourteen potentially eligible mCRC patients were screened for BRAF mutational status. Fifteen BRAF mutant patients (7%) were included in the validation cohort. At a median follow up of 25.7months, 6m-PFR was 73%. Median PFS and OS were 9.2 and 24.1months, respectively. In the pooled population, at a median follow up of 40.4months, 6m-PFR was 84%. Median PFS and OS were 11.8 and 24.1months, respectively. Overall RR and disease control rate were 72% and 88%, respectively., Conclusion: Lacking randomised trials in this specific molecular subgroup, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab might be a reasonable option for the first-line treatment of BRAF mutant mCRC patients., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)