Search

Background: Many factors, including histopathologic parameters, seem to influence the prognosis of patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM), although their relative weight is unclear. Histopathologic growth patterns (HGPs) of CRCLM may affect sensitivity to antiangiogenics. We aimed at evaluating differences in histopathologic parameters of response according to the use of bevacizumab or cetuximab as first-line targeted agents, and at exploring the prognostic and predictive role of HGPs., Methods: We performed a comprehensive histopathologic characterisation of CRCLM from 159 patients who underwent secondary resection, after receiving triplets FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) or COI (capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (N = 103) vs cetuximab (N = 56) in five first-line no-profit clinical trials., Results: Both major histopathologic response (tumour regression grade TRG1-2, 32 vs 14%, p = 0.013) and infarct-like necrosis (80 vs 64%, p = 0.035) were significantly higher in the bevacizumab than in the cetuximab group. Achieving major response positively affected relapse-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.012) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.045), also in multivariable models (RFS, p = 0.008; OS, p = 0.033). In the desmoplastic HGP (N = 28), a higher percentage of major response was reported (57 vs 17% in pushing and 22% in replacement HGP, p < 0.001) and an unsignificant advantage from cetuximab vs bevacizumab was evident in RFS (p = 0.116). In the pushing HGP (N = 66), a significant benefit from bevacizumab vs cetuximab (p = 0.017) was observed. No difference was described in the replacement HGP (N = 65, p = 0.615)., Conclusions: The histopathologic response is the only independent determinant of survival in patients resected after triplets plus a biologic. When associated with triplet chemotherapy, bevacizumab induces a higher histopathologic response rate than cetuximab. The assessment of HGPs should be further explored as a predictor of benefit from available targeted agents.

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.)

Oligometastatic disease (OMD) identifies tumours with limited metastatic spread. OMD definition is not univocal and no data from clinical trials are available about the prognostic effect of OMD in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the impact of locoregional treatments (LRTs) and the effect of chemotherapy intensification in these patients. The role of tumour burden (TB) in driving therapeutic choices is also debated. We performed a pooled analysis of phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies comparing FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (bev) to doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI)/bev. Patients were grouped in OMD versus non-OMD based on the European Society for Medical Oncology definition. Among patients with OMD, those with OMD/low TB were compared with all the others. Of 1187 patients enrolled, 1096 were classified as OMD (N = 312 [28%]) or non-OMD (N = 784 [72%]). Among patients with OMD, 126 (40%) were OMD/low TB. OMD was associated with longer progression-free survival (14.0 versus 10.1 months; p < 0.01) and overall survival (38.2 versus 22.0 months; p < 0.01). These results were confirmed in multivariable models. The benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bev compared with doublets/bev did not differ in accordance with OMD and TB (p for interaction >0.05). Patients with OMD underwent LRTs more frequently (p < 0.01) and those with OMD/low TB had higher chance to undergo LRTs after the first progression (p < 0.01). OMD is a positive prognostic factor in mCRC. The benefit from the upfront treatment intensification is independent of the metastatic spread extent and TB. LRTs should be highly considered in these patients, mainly during the first-line therapy but also at later stages of treatment history in selected cases. • Patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) (European Society for Medical Oncology definition) and low tumour burden (TB) have better prognosis. • The benefit from FOLFOXIRI/bev vs doublets/bev is independent of metastatic spread. • Patients with OMD are optimal candidates to an intensified upfront chemotherapy. • Locoregional treatments should be strongly considered in patients with OMD especially those with low TB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]