Search

Background Despite national guideline recommendations for universal biomarker testing (KRAS , NRAS , BRAF , and mismatch repair and microsatellite instability [MMR/MSI]) in all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), little is known regarding adherence to these recommendations in routine practice. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with mCRC diagnosed between January 1, 2013, and December 27, 2018, from a de-identified electronic health record–derived database. We analyzed disparities in KRAS , NRAS , BRAF , and MMR/MSI testing by race, age, sex, and insurance status using χ2 tests and t tests. We evaluated changes in biomarker testing over time with attention to changes around dates of landmark publications and guideline updates using χ2 tests and Cochran-Armitage tests. Results A total of 20 333 patients were identified of which 66.6% had test results for any biomarker. Rates of test results for all 4 biomarkers statistically significantly increased over time (P  < .001). However, as of June 30, 2018, the rate of test results was only 46% for NRAS , 56% for KRAS , and 46% for BRAF. As of December 31, 2017, the rate of MMR/MSI testing was 59%. Higher documented testing rates were associated with younger age, lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and commercial insurance. There were no clinically meaningful and/or statistically significant differences in documented testing rates by tumor sidedness, race, sex, or initial stage. Conclusions Increased rates of documented testing for NRAS , BRAF , and MMR/MSI in mCRC was seen between 2013 and 2018 reflecting adoption of guideline recommendations. However, the rate of documented testing remains lower than expected and warrants additional research to understand the extent to which this may represent a clinical practice quality concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a component of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) that is shed by malignant tumors into the bloodstream and other bodily fluids. ctDNA can comprise up to 10% of a patient's cfDNA depending on their tumor type and burden. The short half-life of ctDNA ensures that its detection captures tumor burden in real-time and offers a non-invasive method of repeatedly evaluating the genomic profile of a patient's tumor. A challenge in ctDNA detection includes clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which can be distinguished from tumor variants using a paired whole-blood control. Most assays for ctDNA quantification rely on measurements of somatic variant allele frequency (VAF), which is a mutation-dependent method. Patients with certain types of solid tumors, including colorectal cancer (CRC), can have levels of cfDNA 50 times higher than healthy patients. ctDNA undergoes a precipitous drop shortly after tumor resection and therapy, and rising levels can foreshadow radiologic recurrence on the order of months. The amount of tumor bulk required for ctDNA detection is lower than that for computed tomography (CT) scan detection, with ctDNA detection preceding radiologic recurrence in many cases. cfDNA/ctDNA can be used for tumor molecular profiling to identify resistance mutations when tumor biopsy is not available, to detect minimal residual disease (MRD), to monitor therapy response, and for the detection of tumor relapse. Although ctDNA is not yet implemented in clinical practice, studies are ongoing to define the appropriate way to use it as a tool in the clinic. In this review article, we examine the general aspects of ctDNA, its status as a biomarker, and its role in the management of early (II–III) and late (IV; mCRC) stage colorectal cancer (CRC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prevalence of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) will continue to increase with our aging population. Treatment of mCRC has changed significantly in the last few decades as we have learned how to personalize the treatment of mCRC to the biology of the tumor, utilizing new treatment approaches. With an ever-changing treatment paradigm, managing the population of older adults becomes paramount. This review highlights the pivotal clinical trials that defined the use of systemic therapy, immunotherapy and targeted therapies for mCRC, and how those are applied to the older patient population. In addition, we outline the tools for an in-depth assessment of an older adult in regards to treatment planning and management of therapy-related toxicities. A comprehensive geriatric assessment can assist in the selection of treatment for an older adult with mCRC. While frail older patients can frequently only tolerate single agents or modified regimens, fit older adults remain candidates for a wider range of treatment options. However, since all of these treatments are associated with possible toxicities, each patient's treatment must be personalized to the patient's goals and wishes through a shared decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a subjective assessment of patients' overall health. Quantification of physical activity using a wearable tracker (Fitbit Charge [FC]) may provide an objective measure of patient's overall PS and treatment tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer were prospectively enrolled into two cohorts (medical and surgical) and asked to wear FC for 4 days at baseline (start of new chemotherapy [± 4 weeks] or prior to curative resection) and follow-up (4 weeks [± 2 weeks] after initial assessment in medical and postoperative discharge in surgical cohort). Primary end point was feasibility, defined as 75% of patients wearing FC for at least 12 hours/d, 3 of 4 assigned days. Mean steps per day (SPD) were correlated with toxicities of interest (postoperative complication or ≥ grade 3 toxicity). A cutoff of 5,000 SPD was selected to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were accrued over 3 years with 55% males and a median age of 59.5 years. Feasibility end point was met with 68 patients (85%) wearing FC more than predefined duration and majority (91%) finding its use acceptable. The mean SPD count for patients with PS 0 was 6,313, and for those with PS 1, it was 2,925 (122 and 54 active minutes, respectively) (P =.0003). Occurrence of toxicity of interest was lower among patients with SPD > 5,000 (7 of 33, 21%) compared with those with SPD < 5,000 (14 of 43, 32%), although not significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity with FC is feasible in patients with colorectal cancer and well-accepted. SPD may serve as an adjunct to PS assessment and a possible tool to help predict toxicities, regardless of type of therapy. Future studies incorporating FC can standardize patient assessment and help identify vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]