Search

Purpose: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy., Methods: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability., Results: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups., Conclusion: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy., Competing Interests: Richard A. AdamsHonoraria: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Merck SeronoResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & DohmeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca Janet GrahamHonoraria: Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nucana, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck KGaATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nucana Jenny F. SeligmannHonoraria: Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular DiagnosticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex Matthew SeymourResearch Funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca Richard KaplanResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Mahesh ParmarResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Clovis Oncology Philip QuirkeHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Adlai Nortye, Avacta Life Sciences, Amgen, BayerResearch Funding: Roche, GeneFirst, ONIPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Roche have filed a patent jointly with my UniversityTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bayer, Amgen Rachel ButlerSpeakers' Bureau: Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Illumina, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Ewan BrownResearch Funding: MSD Oncology Fiona CollinsonResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb Stephen FalkStock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKlineSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenResearch Funding: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: CelgeneOther Relationship: Servier Harpreet WasanHonoraria: Merck KGaA, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Servier, Array BioPharma, Roche/Genentech, ERYTECH Pharma, Incyte, ZymeworksConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, ERYTECH Pharma, Shire, Incyte, Sirtex Medical, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Sirtex Medical, Celgene, Merck KGaA, Servier, IncyteResearch Funding: Sirtex Medical, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme Kai-Keen ShiuHonoraria: Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Innovent Biologics, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Roche, Mirati TherapeuticsResearch Funding: MSD Oncology, Roche Gary MiddletonConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, D2G, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, BMS, Servier, PierreFabre, AZTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS Leslie SamuelHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Merck, Array BioPharma, Tesaro, Servier, Hutchison MediPharma Richard H. WilsonHonoraria: Servier, Amgen, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, CV6 Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Amphista Therapeutics, NucanaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Pierre Fabre Louise C. BrownResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Timothy S. MaughanConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Vertex, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, PsiOxus Therapeutics, Merck KgAA, Almac DiagnosticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Analysis of routine population-based data has previously shown that patterns of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer can vary widely, but there is limited evidence available to determine if such variation is also seen in the use of chemotherapy. This study quantified variation in adjuvant chemotherapy across both England using cancer registry data and in more detail across the representative Yorkshire and Humber regions. Individuals with Stages II and III colorectal cancer who underwent major resection from 2014 to 2015 were identified. Rates of chemotherapy were calculated from the Systemic Anticancer Treatment database using multilevel logistic regression. Additionally, questionnaires addressing different clinical scenarios were sent to regional oncologists to investigate the treatment preferences of clinicians. The national adjusted chemotherapy treatment rate ranged from 2% to 46% (Stage II cancers), 19% to 81% (Stage III cancers), 24% to 75% (patients aged <70 years) and 5% to 46% (patients aged ≥70 years). Regionally, the rates of treatment and the proportions of treated patients receiving combination chemotherapy varied by stage (Stage II 4%-26% and 0%-55%, Stage III 48%-71% and 40%-84%) and by age (<70 years 35%-68% and 49%-91%; ≥70 years 15%-39% and 6%-75%). Questionnaire responses showed significant variations in opinions for high-risk Stage II patients with both deficient and proficient mismatch repair tumours and Stage IIIB patients aged ≥70 years. Following a review of the evidence, open discussion in our region has enabled a consensus agreement on an algorithm for colorectal cancer that is intended to reduce variation in practice., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Union for International Cancer Control.)

Aims: Brain (central nervous system; CNS) metastases occur in 30-50% of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). A substantive evidence base for treatment is lacking, but activity with lapatinib plus capecitabine (lap-cap) has been reported. We compared lap-cap with trastuzumab plus capecitabine (tras-cap) in patients with HER2-positive MBC with CNS metastases previously treated with trastuzumab., Materials and Methods: This open-label randomised phase II screening trial aimed to randomise 130 participants over 2 years to receive lap-cap or tras-cap. Eligible patients had HER2-positive MBC with newly diagnosed or recently progressed CNS metastases; previous, or current, treatment included: trastuzumab, a taxane or anthracycline and recent completion of local cranial therapy. The primary end point was time to progression of CNS metastases within the 24-week trial period. Secondary objectives included CNS response rate, progression-free survival, steroid use for CNS symptoms and feasibility of recruitment to a large phase III trial., Results: Between September 2011 and October 2013, 30 participants were randomised, 16 to lap-cap and 14 to tras-cap. Recruitment to a large phase III trial was determined not to be feasible. At 24 weeks, CNS disease progression was 41.8% (95% confidence interval 16.1-67.5%) in lap-cap and 41.2% (95% confidence interval 12.8-69.6%) in tras-cap arms; progression-free survival was 44.4% (95% confidence interval 18.1-70.8%) in lap-cap and 50.0% (95% confidence interval 20.9-79.1%) in tras-cap arms., Conclusion: Poor recruitment confirmed that a larger phase III trial would not be feasible and prohibited a preliminary evaluation of the superiority of lap-cap over tras-cap. Descriptive statistics are presented to inform the limited evidence base and future study design., (Copyright © 2020 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The presence of peritoneal metastases in patients with advanced colorectal cancer is associated with poor prognosis but the mechanisms for this are unclear. This review summarises the current knowledge of the pathophysiology, clinical features, prevalence, prognosis, and molecular biology of peritoneal metastases and the risk factors for the development of peritoneal metastases following resection of a primary colorectal tumour. Furthermore, the evidence for treatment strategies are described including cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, sequential post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy and emerging novel strategies. Active areas of research should include the identification of individuals at high risk of peritoneal metastases after curative resection of primary tumour, development of a surveillance program for high-risk patients, optimisation of systematic therapies and further investigation of the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JS – speaker fees Merck Serono; advisory board - Pierre Fabre, Roche; CME – GI Connect. NPW - consultancy fees from Eisai., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (HER1) signaling depends on ligand binding and dimerization with itself or other HER receptors. We previously showed in a randomized trial that high EGFR ligand expression is predictive of panitumumab benefit in advanced colorectal cancer. Tumor expression of HER3 may further refine the RAS wild-type (wt) population benefitting from anti-EGFR agents., Objective: To examine HER3 messenger RNA expression as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR therapy in a randomized clinical trial of panitumumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: The study was a prospectively planned retrospective biomarker study of pretreatment samples from the PICCOLO trial that tested the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan therapy in patients with KRAS wt advanced colorectal cancer who experienced failure with prior fluoropyrimidine treatment. HER3 was assessed as a prognostic marker, then as a predictive biomarker in patients with RAS wt, first as a continuous variable and then as a binary (high vs low) variable. Relationship with MEK-AKT pathway mutations and EGFR ligands epiregulin and amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) were also assessed., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points were response rate and overall survival (OS)., Results: In 308 patients (mean age at randomization, 61.6 years; 193 men) higher HER3 was weakly prognostic for OS (hazard ratio [HR] per 2-fold change, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .04) but not PFS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05; P = .25). Higher HER3 was predictive, being associated with prolonged PFS on irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001), but not irinotecan (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13; P = .65) in patients with RAS wt, with significant interaction between biomarker and treatment (P = .001). Similar interaction was seen for OS (P = .004). In an exploratory binary model, dividing the population at the 66th percentile, HER3 was predictive of panitumumab benefit: in patients with high HER3 expression, median PFS was 8.2 months (IrPan) vs 4.4 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P < .001). Patients with low HER3 expression gained no benefit in PFS: 3.3 months (IrPan) vs 4.3 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = .84), with significant interaction (P = .002). The binary model was also predictive for OS, with significant interaction (P = .01). Combining HER3 and ligand data, patients with HER3-high, AREG/EREG-high tumors gained markedly from panitumumab (PFS HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.51; P < .005 and OS HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73; P = .004). Conversely, patients with HER3-low, AREG/EREG-low tumors did not benefit (PFS HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.79; P = .57 and OS HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.92-2.26; P = .11)., Conclusions and Relevance: High HER3 expression identified patients with RAS wt who gained markedly from panitumumab, and those who did not, with statistically significant biomarker-treatment interactions for PFS and OS. This finding provides insight into the mechanism of anti-EGFR agents and is of potential clinical utility.

Background: To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types., Patients and Methods: 2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status., Results: 231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted OR = 0.76, P = 0.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HR = 1.14, P = 0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HR = 1.69, P < 0.001). Fewer BRAF-mutant patients received second-line treatment (33% versus 51%, P < 0.001), but BRAF-mutation was not associated with inferior second-line outcomes (RR adjusted OR = 0.56, P = 0.45; PFS adjusted HR = 1.01, P = 0.93). Significant clinical heterogeneity within the BRAF-mutant population was observed: a proportion (24.3%) had good first-line PFS and P-PS (both >6 months; OS = 24.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS = 4.7 months., Conclusions: BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer., Methods: In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m(2) intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m(2) if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876., Results: Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12-13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83-1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64-0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group., Interpretation: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents., Funding: Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)