1. First-Line Therapy in Metastatic, RAS Wild-Type, Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer: Should Everyone Receive Anti-EGFR Therapy?
- Author
-
Airoldi M, Bartolini M, Fazio R, Farinatti S, Daprà V, Santoro A, and Puccini A
- Subjects
- Humans, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols therapeutic use, Neoplasm Metastasis, Mutation, ras Proteins genetics, Colorectal Neoplasms drug therapy, Colorectal Neoplasms pathology, Colorectal Neoplasms genetics, ErbB Receptors antagonists & inhibitors, ErbB Receptors genetics
- Abstract
Purpose of Review: This narrative review explores the efficacy and applicability of anti-EGFR therapy as the first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It critically examines current guidelines, along with recent evidence in the literature, to assess whether it should be universally applied., Recent Findings: Recent evidences highlight the variability of the response to anti-EGFR therapies due to molecular diversity and several clinical factors, such as RAS mutational status and primary tumor location. Anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for most patients with MSS, RAS-WT, left-sided mCRC. Whether this combination is the best treatment for these patients remains an open question. This review delves into the role of EGFR inhibition in mCRC, focusing on clinical factors and the knowledge of biology, molecular targets, and biomarkers. It underscores the crucial role of a personalized approach, empowering healthcare providers and equipping them with the confidence to make informed decisions., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent: This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Conflict of Interest: Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent: This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Conflict of Interest: Armano Santoro reports honoraria and advisory board consultancy from BMS (Bristol Myers Squibb), Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, and MSD (Merck Sharp and Dohme); speaker honoraria from Takeda, BMS, Roche, Abb-Vie, Amgen, Celgene, Servier, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Sandoz, Eisai, Novartis, Bayer, and MSD (all outside the submitted work). The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF