Search

Background: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment., Methods: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L., Conclusion: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Benoist Chibaudel reports consulting and advisory role from Amgen, Bayer, Beigine, Biocartis, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Revolution Medicines, Roche, SeqOne, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda. Josep Tabernero reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna Inc, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, TheraMyc and Tolremo Therapeutics. Stocks: Oniria Therapeutics and also educational collaboration with Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). Qian Shi reports consulting/advisory role from Yiviva Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Kronos Bio, and Mirati Therapeutics Inc; Honorarium/speaker role from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (to myself), research funds from Celgene/BMS, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis (to institution). Thierry Andre reports attending advisory board meetings and receiving consulting fees from Abbvie, Astellas, Aptitude Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Nordic Oncology, Seagen, Servier, Takeda and Transgène and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen and Servier; and support for meetings from Merck & Co. Inc. and Servier. John Zalcberg reports leadership from ICON Group, Lipotek, PRAXIS; Stock from Biomarin, Ophthea, Amarin, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Frequency Therapeutics, Gilead, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, UniQure, Zogenix, Orphazyme, Moderna Therapeutics, TWST, Novavax, Teladoc; Honoraria from Gilead Sciences, MSD Oncology, Viatris; Consulting & Advisory Role from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Specialized Therapeutics, CEND, Deciphera, REVOLUTION MEDICINE, FivePHusion, Genorbio, 1Global, Novatech, Alloplex Biotherapeutics Inc, Oncology Republic; Research Funding from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, IQvia, Mylan, Ipsen, Eisai, Medtronic, MSD Oncology, Servier; Travel from MSD Oncology, ICON Group, PRAXIS.Eric Van Cutsem repors participation to advisory boards for Abbvie, ALX, Amgen, Array, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, GSK, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Takeda, Terumo, Taiho, Zymeworks; research grants from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Servier paid to his institution. Takayuki Yoshino reports honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Biopharma Co., Ltd., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., MSD K.K.; consulting fee from Sumitomo Corp.; research grant from Amgen K.K., Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd, FALCO biosystems Ltd., Genomedia Inc., MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES CO., LTD., Merus N.V., Molecular Health GmbH, MSD K.K., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co ., Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc.,Roche Diagnostics K.K., Sanofi K.K., Sysmex Corp., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Richard Adams reports receiving consulting fees from Takeda, Bayer, GSK; honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Seagen; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Servier, Takeda; Participation on Advisory Board from Takeda, Seagen. Carsten Bokemeyer repors receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare, BioNTech, Heaxal, Lindis Biotech, and Sanofi Aventis; as Invited Speaker from AOK Germany, med update, and Roche Pharma; reports honoraria from DGHO, Hamburg Cancer Society, National Network of German Cancer Centers (DKH), Northern German Society of Internal Medicine, DGHO, German Cancer Society. Cornelis J. A. Punt repors receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Nordic Pharma. Richard M Goldberg receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Fight for Colorectal Cancer, US NCI. Volker Heinemann repors receiving consulting fees from Merck, Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Servier, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Halozyme, MSD, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Terumo, Sirtex, Oncosil, Nordic, Boehringer-Ingelheim; honoraria from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Sirtex, Seagen, GSK; support for attending from Merck, Amgen, MSD, Nordic, AstraZeneca, Servier: reports stock from BionTech. Chiara Cremolini repors receiving consulting fees from Nordic Pharma, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Takeda; reports honoraria from Takeda, MSD, Amgen, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Bayer; participation to advisory board from Mirat. Miriam Koopman repors receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirtex, Servier and PI participation from the international cohort study PROMETCO with Servier as sponsor; participation to advisory board from Eisai, Nordic Farma, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier; as leadership or fiduciary role in Chair ESMO RWDD working group, co-chair DCCG, PI PLCRC (national observational cohort study), involved in several clinical trials as PI or co-investigator in CRC. Alan Venook repors receiving consulting fees from Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Deciphera; participation on Advisory Board in Amgen, Agenus. Timothy Maughan repors receiving consulting fees from Merck KGAa, Cancer Research UK, Astrazeneca, Ground Truth Laboratories, Perspectum, Nordin Pharma; participation on Advisory Board and leadership in Cancer Research UK, National Cancer Research Institute-University of Liverpool. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose The objectives were to evaluate dosing schedules of labetuzumab govitecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 (CEACAM5) for tumor delivery of 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38), in an expanded phase II trial of patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Eligible patients with at least one prior irinotecan-containing therapy received labetuzumab govitecan once weekly at 8 and 10 mg/kg, or two times per week at 4 and 6 mg/km on weeks 1 and 2 of 3-week repeated cycles. End points were safety, response, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Results Eighty-six patients who had undergone a median of five prior therapies (range, one to 13) were each enrolled into one of the four cohorts. On the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, 38% of these patients had a tumor as well as plasma carcinoembryonic antigen reduction from baseline after labetuzumab govitecan treatment; one patient achieved a partial response with a sustained response spanning > 2 years, whereas 42 patients had stable disease as the best overall response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.6 and 6.9 months, respectively. The major toxicities (grade ≥ 3) among all cohorts were neutropenia (16%), leukopenia (11%), anemia (9%), and diarrhea (7%). The antibody-drug conjugate's mean half-life was 16.5 hours for the four cohorts. Anti-drug/anti-antibody antibodies were not detected. The two once-weekly dose schedules, showing comparable toxicity and efficacy, were chosen for further study. Conclusion Monotherapy with labetuzumab govitecan demonstrated a manageable safety profile and therapeutic activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, all with prior irinotecan therapy. Further studies of labetuzumab govitecan treatment alone or in combination with other therapies in earlier settings are indicated.

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of adding lapatinib to capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) in patients with previously untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -amplified advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-positive advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to CapeOx plus lapatinib 1,250 mg or placebo daily. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2 amplification in the primary efficacy population., Results: A total of 545 patients were randomly assigned, and 487 patients comprised the primary efficacy population. Median OS in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 12.2 (95% CI, 10.6 to 14.2) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 11.3), respectively, which was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12). Median progression-free survival in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 6.0 (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.0) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.7), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.00; P = .0381). Response rate was significantly higher in the lapatinib arm: 53% (95% CI, 46.4 to 58.8) compared with 39% (95% CI, 32.9 to 45.3) in the placebo arm (P = .0031). Preplanned exploratory subgroup analyses showed OS in the lapatinib arm was prolonged in Asian and younger patients. No correlation was observed between HER2 immunohistochemistry status and survival. There were increased toxicities in the lapatinib arm, particularly diarrhea., Conclusion: Addition of lapatinib to CapeOx did not increase OS in patients with HER2-amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. There were clear differences in the effect of lapatinib depending on region and age. Future studies could examine this correlation., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: In recent retrospective analyses of early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), low and high body mass index (BMI) scores were associated with worsened outcomes. Whether BMI is a prognostic or predictive factor in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unclear., Patients and Methods: Individual data from 21,149 patients enrolled onto 25 first-line mCRC trials during 1997 to 2012 were pooled. We assessed both prognostic and predictive effects of BMI on overall survival and progression-free survival, and we accounted for patient and tumor characteristics and therapy type (targeted v nontargeted)., Results: BMI was prognostic for overall survival (P < .001) and progression-free survival (P < .001), with an L-shaped pattern. That is, risk of progression and/or death was greatest for low BMI; risk decreased as BMI increased to approximately 28 kg/m(2), and then it plateaued. Relative to obese patients, patients with a BMI of 18.5 kg/m(2) had a 27% increased risk of having a PFS event (95% CI, 20% to 34%) and a 50% increased risk of death (95% CI, 43% to 56%). Low BMI was associated with poorer survival for men than women (interaction P < .001). BMI was not predictive of treatment effect., Conclusion: Low BMI is associated with an increased risk of progression and death among the patients enrolled on the mCRC trials, with no increased risk for elevated BMI, in contrast to the adjuvant setting. Possible explanations include negative effects related to cancer cachexia in patients with low BMI, increased drug delivery or selection bias in patients with high BMI, and potential for an interaction between BMI and molecular signaling pathways., Competing Interests: Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found in the article online at www.jco.org. Author contributions are found at the end of this article., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To evaluate panitumumab plus modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 (codons 12 and 13) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A prespecified secondary objective was to assess treatment effects in an extended RAS analysis that included exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS., Patients and Methods: Patients with WT KRAS exon 2 tumors were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 or bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety., Results: Of 285 randomly assigned patients, 278 received treatment. In the WT KRAS exon 2 intent-to-treat group, PFS was similar between arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.17; P = .353). Median OS was 34.2 and 24.3 months in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.89; P = .009). In the WT RAS subgroup (WT exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS), PFS favored the panitumumab arm (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.96; P = .029). Median OS was 41.3 and 28.9 months (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.02; P = .058) in the panitumumab and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were similar between arms., Conclusion: PFS was similar and OS was improved with panitumumab relative to bevacizumab when combined with mFOLFOX6 in patients with WT KRAS exon 2 tumors. Patients with WT RAS tumors seemed to experience more clinical benefit with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)