Search

Purpose: The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer., Methods: Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873)., Results: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%)., Conclusion: In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option., Competing Interests: Dominik Paul ModestHonoraria: Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Onkowissen, Sanofi, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Servier, Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Cor2Ed, IQvia, OnkowissenResearch Funding: Amgen, ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier Meinolf KarthausConsulting or Advisory Role: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen Stefan FruehaufStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Merck Ullrich GraevenHonoraria: Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Servier, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck KGaA, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hexal, Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck KGaA, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline Lothar MüllerHonoraria: Roche Alexander Otto KönigHonoraria: Ipsen, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG Ludwig Fischer von WeikersthalHonoraria: Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Lilly GmbH Albrecht KretzschmarHonoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Merck Serono, Shire, Amgen, Medac, Servier, Sanofi, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer Schering Pharma, Aspen Pharma, Roche PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, Shire, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: PharmaMar, Merck Serono, Ipsen, Medac Eray GoekkurtConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi Annika KurreckHonoraria: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Medac Arndt StahlerHonoraria: Roche, Servier, Taiho PharmaceuticalTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer Anke Reinacher-SchickHonoraria: Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi/Aventis, Merck Serono, Celgene, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, MSD, Aurikamed, IOMEDICO, Promedicis, MCI Group, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Baxalta, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Roche, Celgene, Ipsen, Amgen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Servier, AIO-Studien, Georgius Agricola Stiftung Ruhr, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, ERYTECH Pharma, BioNTechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, Amgen, Roche, Servier, MCI Group, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, MSD Stefan KasperHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Lilly, Sanofi/AventisConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Servier, Janssen-CilagResearch Funding: Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, Servier, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Lilly, Amgen, Sanofi, RocheOther Relationship: Sanofi, Amgen, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Lilly Volker HeinemannHonoraria: Roche, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Taiho Pharmaceutical, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Servier, Halozyme, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sirtex Medical, Shire, ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical, Amgen, Servier, Shire, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb Sebastian StintzingHonoraria: Merck KGaA, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Takeda, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Servier, MSDConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck KGaA, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Takeda, MSD, Servier, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Merck SeronoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck KGaA, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Sirtex Medical, Amgen, Lilly, Takeda, Pierre Fabre Tanja TrarbachResearch Funding: AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, Takeda, OMT, AbbVie, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi/Aventis, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson/JanssenNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

(1) Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) represents one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). As recent data has suggested an increased cancer incidence for IBS patients, there is an ongoing debate whether IBS might be associated with a risk of cancer development. In the present study, we evaluated and compared incidence rates of different malignancies including gastrointestinal cancer in a large cohort of outpatients, with or without IBS, treated in general practices in Germany. (2) Methods: We matched a cohort of 21,731 IBS patients from the IQVIA Disease Analyzer database documented between 2000 and 2019 in 1284 general practices to a cohort of equal size without IBS. Incidence of cancer diagnoses were evaluated using Cox regression models during a 10-year follow-up period. (3) Results: In 11.9% of patients with IBS compared to 8.0% without IBS, cancer of any type was diagnosed within 10 years following the index date ( p < 0.001). In a regression analysis, this association was confirmed in female (HR: 1.68, p < 0.001) and male (HR = 1.57, p < 0.001) patients as well as in patients of all age groups. In terms of cancer entity, 1.9% of patients with and 1.3% of patients without IBS were newly diagnosed with cancer of digestive organs ( p < 0.001). Among non-digestive cancer entities, the strongest association was observed for skin cancer (HR = 1.87, p < 0.001), followed by prostate cancer in men (HR = 1.81, p < 0.001) and breast cancer in female patients (HR = 1.80, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Our data suggest that IBS might be associated with cancer of the digestive organs as well as with non-digestive cancer entities. However, our findings do not prove causality and further research is warranted as the association could be attributed to life style factors that were not documented in the database.

Secondary resection of metastases is recommended in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Data describing changes in mutational profiles of corresponding primary tumor and metastatic tissue after conversion treatment are limited. Next generation sequencing was performed in formalin-fixed mCRC samples from patients of the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab) before treatment start (baseline) and after secondary resection of metastases (post baseline). Changes of mutational profiles and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were assessed within a post-hoc analysis. Median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between treatment arms. Paired tumor samples were obtained from 25 patients (19 RAS wild-type, 6 RAS mutant by pyrosequencing). ORR (92.0% vs 58.0%) and OS (60.8 vs 35.4 months, hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% CI 0.14-1.12], P = .08) were higher for patients receiving cetuximab. After conversion therapy, 56 alterations (42 in the cetuximab and 14 in the bevacizumab arm) were newly observed in 18 patients (9 each treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab). Gains (n = 21) and losses (n = 21) of alterations occurred during cetuximab-based treatment, while mainly gains of alterations occurred during bevacizumab (n = 10). Three of nine patients treated with cetuximab that presented a change of mutational profiles, developed resistance to cetuximab. Mutational profiles were largely comparable before and after treatment with anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR directed monoclonal antibodies after secondary resection. Mutations associated with resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies were observed in only one-third of patients., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), there are limited data on associations between early tumor shrinkage (ETS), depth of response (DpR), and patient characteristics., Methods: Data from patients with RAS wild-type mCRC who had participated in the PRIME (NCT00364013) and PEAK (NCT00819780) studies were analyzed retrospectively. ETS and DpR were assessed by baseline Köhne category/BRAF status (PRIME) and baseline tumor load (pooled PRIME and PEAK)., Results: Analysis populations included 436 to 665 patients. Patients' chances of achieving ETS of 30% or greater were 63.8%, 50.4%, and 41.9% in the low-, medium-, and high-risk Köhne categories, and 21.7% in those with BRAF mutations. Corresponding percentages for the highest DpR classification (71%-100%) were 47.7% (low risk), 23.6% (medium risk), 10.0% (high risk), and 4.2% (BRAF mutant). No clear relationship was observed between baseline tumor load and ETS or DpR. An ETS of 30% or greater and higher DpR values were associated with statistically significant prolongation of median progression-free survival and overall survival., Conclusion: Patients with mCRC categorized at baseline by the Köhne criteria as high risk or with BRAF mutations have lower chances of achieving an ETS of 30% or greater or a high DpR. Baseline tumor load was not predictive of ETS or DpR. Favorable ETS or DpR is associated with improved progression-free and overall survival., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The XELAVIRI trial compared sequential (fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab; irinotecan (Iri) at progression) versus initial combination therapy (fluoropyrimidine, bevacizumab, Iri) of treatment-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the confirmatory analysis, the primary end-point (non-inferiority of sequential therapy regarding time to failure of strategy, TFS) was not met. Nevertheless, significant differences regarding treatment efficacy were observed according to RAS status. Here, we evaluate the consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) as additional biomarkers for sequential versus combination therapy., Material and Methods: Gene expression was measured using NanoString after mRNA extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens. CMS were predicted using multinomial regression and correlated with updated data for TFS, overall (OS) and progression-free survival., Results: CMS were predicted in 337 of 421 (80.0%) patients (CMS1: 18.4%; CMS2: 51.6%; CMS3: 2.7%; CMS4: 27.3%). CMS2 together with RAS/BRAF wild-type status was identified as potential predictive marker of benefit from initial combination therapy for OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.96, p = 0.036) and progression-free survival (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.29-0.79, p = 0.004) and also trending in TFS (HR 0.63, 90% CI 0.41-0.95, p = 0.066). In patients with RAS-mutated mCRC, CMS1 was associated with longer OS after initial combination therapy (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.95, p = 0.038). Interaction testing (two-sided) of CMS and RAS/BRAF status in favour of the combination treatment strategy was significant for OS (p = 0.012) CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, CMS2 may serve as an additional biomarker of benefit from the initial combination therapy, including Iri., Trial Registration: Trial registration ID (clinicaltrials.gov) NCT01249638., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Upfront KRAS and NRAS gene testing ('RAS') is the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), to guide first-line treatment. The presence of RAS mutation (MT) is a negative predictor for the efficacy of anti-EGFR antibodies and the use of cetuximab and panitumumab is restricted to RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC. Conversion from RAS WT to RAS MT mCRC after treatment with anti-EGFR antibodies is a known and well-described acquired resistance mechanism. The by far less frequent 'NeoRAS wild-type' phenomenon (reversion from RAS MT to RAS WT) has recently drawn attention. The proposed effect of chemotherapy on RAS status in mCRC patients is not fully understood. Because of the intriguing biological consequence of a RAS MT to RAS WT reversion, subsequent treatment of NeoRAS WT patients with anti-EGFR antibodies is increasingly being discussed. Here, we report three clinical cases of NeoRAS WT mCRC patients, which received standard-of-care regimens for RAS MT mCRC. Anti-EGFR antibodies were used in two out of three patients after progression of the disease. One of the patients had a long-term response. In line with our observations, NeoRAS WT phenomenon occurs in clinical practice. Retesting of RAS status during treatment should be discussed in patients with unusual long-term clinical courses of RAS MT mCRC to optimise treatment strategy and to evaluate the use of anti-EGFR antibodies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement L.V. received research funding from Pierre Fabre, participant in the Charité-BIH Clinician Scientist Program funded by the Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health. L.V. spouse is an employee and shareholder of Bayer AG. U.K. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glycotope GmbH, Merck KGaA, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech; consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Pfizer; speakers' bureau for AstraZeneca, Bayer Schering Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Novartis; and received research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Bayer Schering Pharma, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre. A.H.S.A. consulting or advisory role for Roche and received travel, accommodations, expenses from Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, PharmaMar. J.C.v.E. received honoraria from Merck, Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Taiho, BMS, Eisai, Novartis; consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Pierre Fabre, BMS, Servier; travel, accommodations, expenses: AstraZeneca, Apceth. A.S. received honoraria from Roche, Servier; travel, accommodations, expenses from Roche, Merck KgA, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Amgen. A.K. received honoraria from Taiho Pharmaceutical, Servier; travel, accommodations, expenses: Roche, Medac. D.P.M. received honoraria from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical; consulting or advisory role: Amgen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Servier; received research funding from Amgen (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Roche (Inst); travel, accommodations, expenses: Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Roche, Servier. S.S. received honoraria Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sirtex Medical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda; consulting or advisory role: Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche; Sanofi, Servier, Takeda; research funding: Merck Serono (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Roche Molecular Diagnostics (Inst); travel, accommodations, expenses: Amgen, Bayer, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Sirtex Medical, Takeda. I.J. received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Mucin-family protein, MUC1, impacts on carcinogenesis and tumor invasion. We evaluated the impact of MUC1 expression on outcome in a cohort of 158 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDAC) in the CONKO-001 study (adjuvant gemcitabine [gem] vs . observation [obs])., Methods: The percentage of MUC1-positive tumor cells by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and the staining intensity were evaluated by two observers blinded to outcome. The numeric values of both parameters were multiplied, resulting in an immunoreactivity score (IRS) ranging from 0 to 12. The level of MUC1 expression was defined as follows: IRS 0-4 (low) vs IRS >4 (high). Outcomes in terms of disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox regressions., Results: In total, tumors of 158 study patients were eligible for immunohistochemistry of MUC1. High cytoplasmic MUC1 expression was associated with impaired DFS and OS in the overall study population (hazard ratio (HR) for DFS: 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78, p = .003; HR for OS: 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, p = .001). In the study arms, prognostic effects of MUC1 were also evident in the observation group (HR for DFS: 0.55; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.04, p = .062; HR for OS: 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = .001) and trending in the gem group (HR for DFS: 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95, p = .041; HR for OS: 0.56, 95% CI 0.28 to1.11, p = .093)., Conclusion: Our data suggest that MUC1 expression is a powerful prognostic marker in patients with PDAC after curatively intended resection., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Striefler, Riess, Lohneis, Bischoff, Kurreck, Modest, Bahra, Oettle, Sinn, Bläker, Denkert, Stintzing, Sinn and Pelzer.)

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) represents one of the most fatal malignancies worldwide. It is suggested that survival in PDAC depends, among other things, on pattern of disease recurrence., Patients and Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of the adjuvant therapy studies CONKO-001, CONKO-005, and CONKO-006, including a total of 912 patients with regard to prognostic factors in patients with recurrent disease. Overall survival from disease recurrence (OS 2) and disease-free survival (DFS) from the day of surgery were expressed by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank testing and Cox regression., Results: Of 912 patients treated within the previously mentioned CONKO trials, we identified 689 patients with disease recurrence and defined site of relapse. In multivariable analysis, the presence of isolated pulmonary metastasis, low tumour grading, and low postoperative level of CA 19-9 remained significant factors for improved OS 2 and DFS. Furthermore, completeness of adjuvant gemcitabine-based treatment (OS 2: P = 0.006), number of relapse sites (OS 2: P = 0.015), and type of palliative first-line treatment (OS 2: P < 0.001) significantly affected overall survival after disease recurrence in PDAC., Conclusions: Determining tumour subgroups using prognostic factors may be helpful to stratify PDAC patients for future clinical trials. In case of disease recurrence, the site of relapse may have a prognostic impact on subsequent survival. Further investigations are needed to identify differences in tumour biology, reflecting relapse patterns and the differing survival of PDAC patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.K., J.W., J.S., M.B., S.B., H.R and U.P. declare no conflicts of interest. D.P.M.: Honoraria: Amgen, Roche, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Research Funding (Institutional): Merck Serono (Inst), Roche (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche. H.O.: Honoraria: Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Consulting or Advisory Role: Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Research Funding (Institutional): Bristol-Myers Squibb. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.K.: Honoraria: Miltenyi Biotec, Fresenius Kabi. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead. M.S.: Honoraria: Sanofi, Astra Zeneca, Leo Pharma, Amgen, Pfizer, Servier, Incyte, MCI, IKF Frankfurt. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Research Funding (Institutional): Leo Pharma, Servier, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Boston medical, BMS. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: XELAVIRI compared sequential (Arm A) versus initial (Arm B) irinotecan in combination with fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, trial identification: NCT01249638. In the full analysis set of the study, non-inferiority of time to failure of strategy (TFS) was not shown. The present analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of gender on treatment outcome and tolerability., Methods: The study end-points overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), TFS and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in female versus male patients and in molecular subgroups (i.e. RAS mutational status). Interaction of treatment and gender was tested by likelihood ratio tests., Results: In total, 281 male and 140 female patients (n = 421) were evaluated. Among the male patients, the ORR was 33.6% without and 58.3% with initial irinotecan (P < 0.001). PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.69; P < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.85; P = 0.002) were also significantly better with initial irinotecan. Among the female patients, the ORR was 42.7% in Arm A and 43.1% in Arm B, PFS was similar (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.55; P = 0.649) without and with initial irinotecan. A strong trend for inferior outcome with regard to OS with initial irinotecan was observed (HR 1.46; 95% CI 0.95-2.24; P = 0.081) and the trend reached significance in the multivariate analysis (HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.08-2.95; P = 0.02). Formal interaction of treatment and gender was observed for ORR (P = 0.018), PFS (P = 0.002) and OS (P = 0.001). Treatment-related adverse events were not significantly different between male and female patients., Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that gender interacts with efficacy of initial irinotecan when used in combination with fluoropyrimidines and bevacizumab. Although male patients derived a significant and clinically meaningful benefit from initial combination chemotherapy, this was not observed in female patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kathrin Heinrich:Honoraria: Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, AMGEN, Celgene. Dominik Paul Modest:Honoraria: Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Sirtex Medical. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Bayer. Research Funding: Merck Serono (Inst), Roche (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Ingrid Ricard:Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche. Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal:Honoraria: Novartis, Roche, Sanofi. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen. Thomas Decker:Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis. Ullrich Graeven:Honoraria: Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sirtex Medical, Daiichi Sankyo. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Amgen. Claudio Denzlinger:Consulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Roche, Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis. Clemens Giessen-Jung:Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche. Arndt Stahler:Honoraria: Roche. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AMGEN, Roche, MSD Sharp & Dohme. Marlies Michl:Honoraria: SIRTeX, Roche, MSD. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: SIRTeX, Amgen, Merck. Andreas Jung:Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Biocartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Merck. Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen. Thomas Kirchner:Consulting/Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Research Funding:Merck, Roche. Speaker's Bureau: Merck, Astra Zeneca. Sebastian Stintzing:Honoraria: Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Sirtex Medical, Eli Lilly. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Takeda. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Sirtex Medical, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Takeda. Volker Heinemann:Honoraria: Roche, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Servier. Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Servier, Halozyme, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Swantje Held, Jens Uhlig, Michael Schenk, Jens Freiberg-Richter, Bettina Peuser and Florian Kaiser: None declared., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several radiotherapeutic approaches for patients with oligotopic malignant liver lesions unfit for surgical resection exist. The most advanced competitive techniques are high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, Cyberknife, volume-modulated-arc therapy (VMAT) and Tomotherapy. We evaluated the optimal technique by a planning study for a single ablative dose with different lesion sizes., Methods: We compared dose distributions of HDR-brachytherapy with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy using the Cyberknife, VMAT or Tomotherapy. Tumor-control-probabilities (TCP), normal-tissue-complication-probabilities (NTCP) were determined in a theoretical framework applying a single dose of 20 Gy (demanding 95% coverage) for intrahepatic lesions of 1-5 cm in size. We evaluated therapeutic ratios by TCP (mean dose in the lesion) relative to high-dose (conformality) or low-dose liver exposition in dependency on the lesion size for each technique. In addition, we considered treatment times and accuracy (clinical target volume vs planning target volume)., Results: HDR-brachtherapy has the highest therapeutic ratios with respect to high-dose as well as low-dose liver exposition even for extended lesions, and the Cyberknife being suited second best. However, for lesions ≥ 3 cm diameter the therapeutic ratios of all ablative techniques are increasingly converging, and better tolerance and shorter treatment times of noninvasive external techniques become more important. On the other hand, mean tumor doses of HDR-brachytherapy of near 60 Gy are unattainable by the other techniques gaining only 22-34 Gy, and the conformality of HDR-brachytherapy is still rather good for lesions ≥ 3 cm diameter., Conclusions: HDR-brachytherapy is by far the most effective technique to treat intrahepatic lesions by a single fraction, but sparing of the surroundings declines with increasing lesion size and approaches the benchmarks of external beam radiosurgery techniques. External beam radiotherapy has the advantage to use suitable fractionation schedules.

Background: Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI improved overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in FIRE-3, but no corresponding benefit was found for progression-free survival. This analysis aimed to determine whether cetuximab improves response and survival versus bevacizumab among response-evaluable patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI for RAS wild-type mCRC and the effect of primary tumour side on outcomes., Methods: The intent-to-treat population included 593 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. Further testing identified 400 patients with extended RAS wild-type disease; of these, 352 (88%) who received ≥3 cycles of therapy and had ≥1 post-baseline scan were evaluable for response and constituted the per-protocol population (169 cetuximab and 183 bevacizumab). Patients received 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either weekly cetuximab or biweekly bevacizumab given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle until response, progression or toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of primary tumour location was evaluated., Results: Median OS in the RAS wild-type population was 31 vs 26 months in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively (HR 0.76, P = 0.012). In the per-protocol population, outcomes favoured cetuximab for ORR (77% vs 65%, P = 0.014) and median OS (33 vs 26 months, HR 0.75, P = 0.011), while PFS was comparable between groups. The advantage of cetuximab over bevacizumab occurred only in patients with left-sided primary tumours., Conclusions: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab resulted in a significantly higher ORR and longer OS compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab among patients with left-sided tumours. The superior response associated with cetuximab may particularly benefit patients with symptomatic tumours or borderline-resectable metastases. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT00433927.

B cells and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) are reported to be important in survival in cancer. Pancreatic Cancer (PDAC) is one of the most lethal cancer types, and currently, it is the seventh leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. A better understanding of tumor biology is pivotal to improve clinical outcome. The desmoplastic stroma is a complex system in which crosstalk takes place between cancer-associated fibroblasts, immune cells and cancer cells. Indirect and direct cellular interactions within the tumor microenvironment (TME) drive key processes such as tumor progression, metastasis formation and treatment resistance. In order to understand the aggressiveness of PDAC and its resistance to therapeutics, the TME needs to be further unraveled. There are some limited data about the influence of nerve fibers on cancer progression. Here we show that small nerve fibers are located at lymphoid aggregates in PDAC. This unravels future pathways and has potential to improve clinical outcome by a rational development of new therapeutic strategies.

Purpose: Amphiregulin ( AREG ) and epiregulin ( EREG ) are ligands of EGFR . Predictive information for anti- EGFR treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was observed, but data for other agents is limited., Experimental Design: Ligand mRNA expression; RAS, BRAF, PIK3CA mutations; and EGFR expression were assessed by qRT-PCR, pyrosequencing, and IHC, respectively, in mCRC tumor tissue of patients participating in the randomized controlled trials FIRE-1, CIOX, and FIRE-3. Normalized mRNA expression was dichotomized using median and third quartile. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method including univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Penalized spline regression analysis tested interaction of mRNA expression and outcome., Results: Of 688 patients with available material, high AREG expression was detected in 343 (>median) and 172 (>3rd quartile) patients. High AREG expression was associated with significantly higher OS [26.2 vs. 21.5 months, HR = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-0.94; P = 0.007], PFS (10.0 vs. 8.1 months, HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P = 0.001), and objective response rate (63.1% vs. 51.6%, P = 0.004) compared to low expression at both threshold values. This effect remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analysis (OS: P = 0.01, PFS: P = 0.002). High AREG mRNA expression interacted significantly with the efficacy of cetuximab compared with bevacizumab (OS: P = 0.02, PFS: P = 0.04) in RAS WT mCRC., Conclusions: High AREG mRNA expression is a favorable prognostic biomarker for mCRC which interacted significantly with efficacy of anti- EGFR treatment., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are used to define degrees of response to chemotherapy. For accelerated response evaluation, early tumor shrinkage (ETS) of ≥ 20% has been suggested as a predictor for outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Together with depth of response (DpR), new alternative metrics have been provided, yielding promising outcome parameters. In this analysis, we aimed to further characterize ETS and DpR., Patients and Methods: This analysis was based on FIRE-3, a randomized phase 3 trial comparing first-line FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. ETS and DpR were determined on the basis of RECIST 1.1 in a blinded radiologic review. ETS was evaluated as a categorized (≥ 20% shrinkage) and continuous parameter. The impact of baseline location and size of metastases on ETS and DpR were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: Of 592 patients, 395 (66.7%) had data available for radiologic review. Median continuous ETS for lung, liver, and suspected lymph node metastases was 20%, 23%, and 30%, respectively. The median DpR was -32%, -44%, and -50%, respectively (all P < .01). In multivariate analysis, lung metastases were significantly associated with inferior DpR (P = .021), whereas hepatic metastases led to higher DpR (P = .024). Large metastases were associated with favorable ETS, whereas small metastases were correlated with higher DpR (P < .001)., Conclusion: ETS and DpR depend on the location and size of metastases in mCRC. These associations may establish the basis for further research to optimize the predictive accuracy of both parameters. This may help basing treatment decisions on ETS and DpR., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In mCRC, disease dynamics may play a critical role in the understanding of long-term outcome. We evaluated depth of response (DpR), time to DpR, and post-DpR survival as relevant endpoints., Methods: We analyzed DpR by central review of computer tomography images (change from baseline to smallest tumor diameter), early tumor shrinkage (≥ 20% reduction in tumor diameter at first reassessment), time to DpR (study randomization to DpR-image), post-DpR progression-free survival (pPFS = DpR-image to tumor progression or death), and post-DpR overall survival (pOS = DpR-image to death) with special focus on BRAF status in 66 patients and primary tumor site in 86 patients treated within the VOLFI-trial, respectively., Results: BRAF wild-type (BRAF-WT) compared to BRAF mutant (BRAF-MT) patients had greater DpR (- 57.6% vs. - 40.8%, p = 0.013) with a comparable time to DpR [4.0 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) vs. 3.9 (95% CI 2.5-5.5) months; p = 0.8852]. pPFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.9-8.0) versus 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-4.0) months in favor of BRAF-WT patients (HR 0.24 (95% CI 0.11-0.53); p < 0.001). This transferred into a significant difference in pOS [33.6 (95% CI 26.0-41.3) vs. 5.4 (95% CI 5.0-5.9) months; HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.55); p < 0.001]. Similar observations were made for patients stratified for primary tumor site., Conclusions: BRAF-MT patients derive a less profound treatment response compared to BRAF-WT patients. The difference in outcome according to BRAF status is evident after achievement of DpR with BRAF-MT patients hardly deriving any further disease control beyond DpR. Our observations hint towards an aggressive tumor evolution in BRAF-MT tumors, which may already be molecularly detectable at the time of DpR.

Background: Molecular biomarkers and primary tumour sidedness guide treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer. Comprehensive molecular profiling aims to identify targetable alterations and measure tumour mutational burden (TMB) to enable precision oncology., Material and Methods: FoundationOne® next-generation sequencing identified single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy number alterations, high TMB (TMB-H) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) in patients treated in the FIRE-3 trial. Data were correlated with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Three hundred seventy-three (49.6%) of 752 patients provided material for this analysis. Frequent SNVs included TP53, APC, KRAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, SMAD4 and FBXW7. KRAS, BRAF V600E and SMAD4 mutations were confirmed as prognostic biomarkers by logistic penalised regression for ORR. OS was significantly longer in patients with SMAD4 wild-type (WT) tumours than in those with SMAD4-mutated tumours (hazard ratio = 0.59 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.34-1.01], p = 0.05), with a higher probability of ORR [odds ratio, SMAD4 SNV versus WT = 0.32 [95% CI = 0.10-0.98], p = 0.05] when treated with cetuximab. MSI-H (30.0%, p = 0.03) and TMB-H (17.3%, p = 0.003) tumours were enriched by FBXW7 mutations. Numerically lower ORR, OS and PFS were observed in MSI-H tumours., Conclusions: RAS, BRAF V600E and SMAD4 mutations were identified as poor prognostic biomarkers in patients of the FIRE-3 trial, whereas improved outcome was observed for BRAF non-V600E mutation. SMAD4 mutation might provide predictive relevance for cetuximab efficacy. MSI-H tumours showed numerically lower ORR, OS and PFS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.S. received honoraria for talks and travel expenses from Roche. C.B.W. received honoraria for talks, advisory boards and travel expenses from Bayer, Celgene, Ipsen, Rafael, RedHill, Roche, Shire/Baxalta and Servier and scientific grant support from Roche. V.H., S.S. and D.P.M. received honoraria for talks, advisory boards and travel expenses from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Takeda, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Taiho, Lilly Oncology, Servier, Sanofi and Bayer Pharmaceuticals. A.J. and T.K. received honoraria for talks, advisory boards and travel expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck KGA, Novartis, Qiagen, Roche Pharma and Takeda. Marl.M. received honoraria for talks from SIRTeX, Roche and MSD and travel expenses from SIRTeX, Amgen and Merck. All remaining authors declared no potential conflict of interest in regard with this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Magnesium wasting is a frequent side effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-antibody treatment as magnesium-absorption mechanisms are dependent on EGFR signaling. EGFR-inhibition results in decreased renal reabsorption. There is evidence that hypomagnesemia during cetuximab treatment correlates with response. The prognostic role of hypomagnesemia during bevacizumab treatment has not been studied yet. Here, we evaluate the prognostic value of hypomagnesemia in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab as first-line therapy. A total of 391 of 752 patients of the firstline irinotecan study population had magnesium levels measured at baseline and for the first three cycles (6 weeks) of treatment. Of those, 240 had Rat Sarkoma wildtype tumors. Overall hypomagnesemia was more common in the cetuximab compared to the bevacizumab arm (80 vs. 43%, P < 0.005). During therapy, magnesium showed a time-dependent decrease to 80% of baseline in the cetuximab and to 89% in the bevacizumab arm. Whereas magnesium continued to decrease over time in the cetuximab-treated patients, it remained stable in the bevacizumab-treated. Overall response rate (ORR) was associated with higher magnesium at week 6 (20.9 vs. 79.1%, P = 0.041). Bevacizumab-treated patients with magnesium levels below the median value at week 6 had a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; 11.7 vs. 9.9 months, P = 0.034; hazard ratio 0.73) and a trend towards longer overall survival (OS) (29.6 vs. 23.2 months, P = 0.089; hazard ratio 0.77). Hypomagnesemia at predefined time points and magnesium nadir had no significant effect on ORR, OS and PFS in the cetuximab arm. Our data show different magnesium kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. For patients treated with cetuximab, hypomagnesemia did not have an impact on response and survival. Hypomagnesemia might have a prognostic value in bevacizumab treatment.

Introduction: The XELAVIRI study compared application of fluoropyrimidine (FP) and bevacizumab (Bev) followed by sequential escalation to irinotecan (Iri), FP and Bev (arm A) to upfront combination therapy with FP, Iri and Bev (arm B) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). To elucidate the impact of age on survival, we evaluated efficacy and early mortality in the underlying trial., Methods: Patients were stratified for age in three cohorts (<65 years, 65-74 years and ≥75 years). Survival end-points were expressed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank testing and Cox regression. Objective response and 60-day mortality were evaluated by chi-square testing., Results: The efficacy analyses suggest more substantial benefit from upfront combination chemotherapy in younger patients with mCRC. Elderly patients (≥75 years) derived limited benefit from upfront combination chemotherapy, particularly in terms of overall survival. Of 421 randomised patients, 13 patients (3.1%) died within 60 days after treatment initiation with the highest prevalence in elderly patients (1.6% < 65 years, 2.8% 65-74 years and 5.2% ≥ 75 years, p = 0.26). The frequency of 60-day mortality was significantly associated with age (with a maximum of 8.7% in patients aged ≥75 years) in patients undergoing upfront combination therapy (p = 0.027) but not in patients receiving sequential treatment (p = 0.63)., Conclusion: Combination therapy with FP, Iri and Bev does not substantially improve the outcome of patients aged ≥75 years as compared with sequential treatment algorithm. These patients appear to be at a relevant risk for 60-day mortality under Iri-based combination chemotherapy plus Bev., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.K. reports receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Roche and Medac. V.H. reports receiving honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Taiho Pharmaceutical and Servier; serving a consulting or advisory role in Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Baxalta, Servier, Halozyme, MSD and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receiving research funding from Merck (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Roche (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Sirtex Medical (Inst) and Shire (Inst) and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical, Amgen, Servier, Shire, MSD and Bristol-Myers Squibb. L.F.v.W. reports receiving honoraria from Novartis, Roche andSanofi and funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Amgen. T.D. reports serving a consulting or advisory role in Novartis. C.D. reports serving a consulting or advisory role in Amgen, Roche and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. U.G. reports receiving honoraria from Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sirtex Medical and Daiichi Sankyo; serving a consulting or advisory role in Novartis, Merck, Amgen, Hexal and Bristol-Myers Squibb and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Merck and Amgen. I.S. reports receiving honoraria from Roche, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and Servier; serving a consulting or advisory role in AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and Roche and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. K.H. reports receiving honoraria from Roche and funding for travel, accommodations and expenses from Amgen, Celgene and Lilly. A.J. reports serving a consulting or advisory role in Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Biocartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Merck and being a member of the Speakers' Bureau for AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Amgen. S.S. reports receiving honoraria from Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Sirtex Medical, Eli Lilly, Pierre-Fabre, Servier and Taiho; serving a consulting or advisory role in Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Takeda, MSD and Pierre-Fabre and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Sirtex Medical, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Takeda and Pierre-Fabre. C.G.-J. reports receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Roche. D.P.M. reports receiving honoraria from Merck Serono, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Sirtex Medical; serving a consulting or advisory role in Merck Serono, Amgen and Bayer; receiving research funding from Merck Serono (Inst), Roche (Inst) and Amgen (Inst) and receiving funds for travel, accommodations and expenses from Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Servier and Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Although biomarkers for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer exist, the benefit patients with RAS mutated tumors derive from established regimens is unclear., Methods: Efficacy of therapeutic strategies available for RAS mutated patients (addition of chemotherapeutic agents and/or anti angiogenic agents) were investigated in fourteen randomized controlled phase III trials at trial level by meta-analysing individual study hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)., Results: 6810 of 10,748 patients (63.3%) were available (48.5% RAS wildtype, 51.5% RAS mutated). Across all treatment lines, additional treatment efficacy (chemotherapy and/or anti angiogenic agents) was significantly smaller in RAS mutated compared to wildtype tumors for OS and PFS. In detail, patients with RAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer derived significant benefit in PFS but not in OS by the addition of either chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agents to the respective comparator. In patients with RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, PFS and OS were improved by the addition of chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agent., Conclusion: The therapeutic benefit of additional substances is less distinct in patients with RAS mutated as compared to RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, especially with regard to OS.

Background: Tumor assessments after first-line therapy of RAS wild-type mCRC with cetuximab (cet) versus bevacizumab (bev) in combination with FOLFIRI were evaluated for factors influencing resectability, conversion to resectability, and survival after best response., Methods: Conversion to resectability was defined as conversion of initially unresectable to resectable disease at best response as determined by retrospective assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were fitted with resectability at best response as response variable. A Cox model comparing the survival from best response was used to measure the influence of treatment, resectability at best response, and resection. Interaction of resection and treatment arm on survival was tested by likelihood ratio test., Results: Overall, 270 patients were evaluable (127 cet-arm, 143 bev-arm). Lung metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence response [CI] 0.19-0.63), BRAF mutation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.82), and elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.9) before randomization were associated with less chance of successful conversion and were integrated into a nomogram. Early tumor shrinkage (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.06-3.3; p 0.034) and depth of response (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; p < 0.001) were associated with successful conversion therapy. Resection of metastases improved post-best-response survival (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p = 0.039), predominantely in cet-treated patients (interaction test, p = 0.02)., Conclusions: Conversion to resectability is significantly associated with baseline characteristics that can be used in a nomogram to predict conversion. Moreover, early efficacy parameters (ETS and DpR) are associated with successful conversion therapy. In FIRE-3, resection of metastases was associated with improved post-best response survival, this effect originated predominantly from the cetuximab-based study arm.

Background: Liver metastases represent the most common secondary malignant liver disease. Data regarding the incidence of colorectal and non-colorectal liver metastases are rare due to insufficient documentation in a register. Results regarding neoadjuvant therapy are limited and mostly from retrospective analyses., Objective: A summary and rating of the rationale for neoadjuvant therapeutic concepts for colorectal and non-colorectal liver metastases were performed., Material Und Methods: The analysis was based on European and American guidelines and included publications in both German and English languages. The results and recommendations were summarized and a review based on the literature is given., Results: Neoadjuvant treatment of liver metastases is performed with heterogeneous intentions. The selection of biologically favorable tumors as well as the conversion of primarily non-operable into resectable metastases of the liver are classical reasons for neoadjuvant treatment. The rationale for neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal and especially for non-colorectal liver metastases cannot be answered in a consistently coherent way with respect to the current status quo of the literature and guidelines. The creation of treatment strategies in clinical settings follows criteria, such as patterns of metastases, complexity of the resection and biological factors (metachronous/synchronous metastases, prognostic factors)., Conclusion: Neoadjuvant treatment in the context of conversion therapy is the standard procedure for metastasized colorectal cancer. The biological selection of favorable tumors as the basis for neoadjuvant treatment of resectable lesions is not a consistently used standard for colorectal cancer. Non-colorectal liver metastases are resected only as part of individual concepts.

Background Surgical intervention and radiation therapy are common approaches for pulmonary metastasectomy. The role of minimally invasive techniques in pulmonary metastases remains unclear. Frameless single robotic radiosurgery [CyberKnife (CK); Accuray Incorporated, Sunnyvale, CA] of pulmonary metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients offers high precision local radiation therapy. Methods We analyzed the efficacy and safety of CK treatment for lung metastases in CRC in 34 patients and a total of 45 lesions. The primary endpoint was local control (LC); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), distant control (DC), and safety-relevant events. Results Of the treated lesions, 34/45 (77.8%) decreased in size or remained unchanged [complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD)]; 8/45 (17.8%) lesions increased in size [progressive disease (PD)] and 2/45 (4.4%) lesions were not evaluable. Local progression was shown in 2 lesions (4.4 %). The median PFS period was six months. In a median follow-up time of 19.4 months, medium OS was 19.9 months (range: 3-61 months). Distant recurrence was observed in 21/34 patients (61.8 %). Intrapulmonary progression occurred in six patients. In 4/45 cases, fiducial placement led to a pneumothorax; three out of four patients needed chest tube insertion. No radiation-associated side effects were reported in 57.8% of patients. In 10/45 cases (22.2%), patients suffered asymptomatic radiographic changes; 7/45 cases (15.6%) reported a late onset of radiation-associated side effects. Maximal radiation-associated side effects reached the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) Grade 1. Conclusion CK treatment of pulmonary metastases is safe and well-tolerated. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with pulmonary metastases and not eligible for surgery, CK radiation offers a valuable treatment option., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2020, Von Einem et al.)

Purpose: This trial investigated the addition of panitumumab to triplet chemotherapy with fluorouracil/folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) in a two-to-one randomized, controlled, open-label, phase II trial in patients with untreated RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (version 1.1). The experimental arm (modified FOLFOXIRI [mFOLFOXIRI] plus panitumumab) was considered active if the ORR was ≥ 75%. The experimental ORR was compared with an estimated ORR of 60% based on historical data, verified by a randomized control group (FOLFOXIRI). The power of the trial was 80%, with a potential type I error of 0.05. Secondary end points included secondary resection rate, toxicity, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Results: A total of 63 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental arm and 33 patients to the control arm. The ORR of the mFOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab arm exceeded 75% and was higher when compared with that of FOLFOXIRI (87.3% v 60.6%; odds ratio, 4.469; 95% CI, 1.61 to 12.38; P = .004). The secondary resection rate was improved with the addition of panitumumab (33.3% v 12.1%; P = .02). Progression-free survival was similar in the study arms, whereas overall survival showed a trend in favor of the panitumumab-containing arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.11; P = .12)., Conclusion: The addition of panitumumab to mFOLFOXIRI in patients with RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer improved the ORR and rate of secondary resection of metastases and represents a treatment option in selected and fit patients in need of highly active first-line therapy. Future studies should determine whether the addition of panitumumab to mFOLFOXIRI prolongs survival.

Background: FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined., Patients and Methods: In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method., Results: CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy., Conclusions: CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

TREAT-ME-1, a Phase 1/2 open-label multicenter, first-in-human, first-in-class trial, evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of treatment with genetically modified autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), MSC&#95; apceth&#95;101, in combination with ganciclovir in patients with advanced gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma. Immunological and inflammatory markers were also assessed. All patients (3 in Phase 1; 7 in Phase 2) received three treatment cycles of MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 at one dose level on Day 0, 7, and 14 followed by ganciclovir administration according to the manufacturer's instructions for 48─72 h after MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 injection. Ten patients were treated with a total dose of 3.0 x 10 6 cells/kg MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101. 36 adverse events and six serious adverse events were reported. Five patients achieved stable disease (change in target lesions of -2 to +28%). For all patients, the median time to progression was 1.8 months (95% CI: 0.5, 3.9 months). Median overall survival could not be estimated as 8/10 patients were still alive at the end of the study (1 year) and therefore censored. Post-study observation of patients showed a median overall survival of 15.6 months (ranging from 2.2─27.0 months). Treatment with MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 and ganciclovir did not induce a consistent increase or decrease in levels of any of the tumor markers analyzed. No clear trends in the immunological markers assessed were observed. MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 in combination with ganciclovir was safe and tolerable in patients with advanced gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma, with preliminary signs of efficacy in terms of clinical stabilization of disease., (© 2019 UICC.)

Panitumumab is approved for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer and was evaluated in Phase III (PRIME, NCT00364013) and Phase II (PEAK, NCT00819780) first-line randomised studies. This retrospective analysis of these trials investigated efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab-based maintenance after oxaliplatin discontinuation in RAS wild-type patients. First-line regimens were FOLFOX4 ± panitumumab in PRIME and mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in PEAK. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), from randomisation and oxaliplatin discontinuation, and toxicity. Overall, median duration of panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) maintenance was 21 (interquartile range: 11-41) weeks; that of 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance was 16 (6-31) weeks. Median OS from randomisation was 40.2 (95% confidence interval: 30.3-50.4) and 39.1 (34.2-63.0) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 24.1 (17.7-33.0) and 28.9 (21.0-32.0) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. Median PFS from randomisation was 16.6 (11.3-23.6) and 15.4 (11.6-18.4) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 12.6 (9.4-16.2) and 13.1 (9.5-16.6) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. From oxaliplatin discontinuation, median OS was 33.9 (24.7-42.8) and 33.5 (24.5-54.9) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 16.4 (12.4-24.1) and 23.3 (15.7-26.3) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively; PFS was 11.7 (7.8-19.2) and 9.7 (5.8-14.8) months and 7.1 (5.6-10.2) and 7.0 (3.9-10.6) months, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were rash, fatigue and diarrhoea. Maintenance of panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV after oxaliplatin discontinuation was well tolerated and may be an acceptable treatment paradigm for patients demonstrating a good response to first-line treatment. Prospective studies are warranted., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

The successful management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is an interdisciplinary challenge, involving medical oncology, surgery and also interventional specialists. Systemic therapy of mCRC is based on regimens of chemotherapeutic combinations plus monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR and VEGF. EGFR-directed antibodies can guided by biomarkers, namely RAS mutation and sidedness of the primary tumor. In pretreated patients, several targetable molecular markers (i.e. BRAF mutation, MSI-status and Her2) should be tested. BRAF inhibitors, checkpoint-inhibitors and her2-targeted combinations (although off-label therapy) increase the available therapeutic options in these selected subgroups., Competing Interests: MB received honoraria/research funding from: Astellas, MSD, Roche, Kite/Gilead, Mologen, Miltenyi, Amgen. DPM received honoraria from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Bayer, Sirtex, MSD, BMS, Lilly., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains incurable in most cases, but survival has improved with advances in cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted agents. However, the optimal use and sequencing of these agents across multiple lines of treatment is unclear. Here, we review current treatment approaches and optimal treatment sequencing across the first-, second- and third-line settings in mCRC, including biological aspects affecting sequencing and rechallenge. Effective first-line therapy is a key determinant of treatment outcomes and should be selected after considering both clinical factors and biological markers, notably RAS and BRAF. The second-line regimen choice depends on the systemic therapies given in first-line. Anti-angiogenic agents (e.g. bevacizumab, ramucirumab and aflibercept) are indicated for most patients, whereas epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors do not improve survival in the second-line setting. Molecular profiling is important in third-line treatment, with options in RAS wild-type patients including EGFR inhibitors (cetuximab or panitumumab), regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab ± ipilimumab may be considered for patients with high microsatellite instability disease. Targeting HER2/neu amplification shows promise for the subset of CRC tumours displaying this abnormality. Sequencing decisions are complicated by the potential for any treatment break or de-escalation to evoke a distinct clinical progression type. Ongoing trials are investigating the optimal sequencing and timing of therapies for mCRC. Molecular profiling has established new targets, and increasing knowledge of tumour evolution under drug pressure will possibly impact on sequencing., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Increased baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum level is associated with inferior overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, limited data exist on its predictive relevance for targeted therapies. Therefore, we analysed its relevance in FIRE-3, a randomised phase III study., Experimental Design: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumour (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Herein, the impact of CEA on patient outcome was investigated., Results: Of 400 patients, 356 (89.0%) were evaluable for CEA. High CEA (>10 ng/ml; N = 237) compared to low CEA (≤10 ng/ml; N = 119) was associated with shorter OS in the FOLFIRI/Bev arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50; P = 0.036), while no significant OS difference was observed in the FOLFIRI/Cet arm (HR = 1.07; P = 0.74). In patients with high CEA, FOLFIRI/Cet compared to FOLFIRI/Bev showed a greater OS benefit (HR = 0.56; P < 0.001) than in patients with low CEA (HR = 0.78; P = 0.30). Furthermore, FOLFIRI/Cet exhibited significantly superior objective response rate in patients with high CEA (odds ratio = 2.21; P = 0.006) in contrast to patients with low CEA (odds ratio = 0.90; P = 0.85)., Conclusion: In patients with RAS-WT mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI/Bev, elevated CEA was associated with inferior survival in the bevacizumab arm, while this was not the case when cetuximab was applied. Comparison of OS and objective response rate according to treatment arms indicated that cetuximab was greatly superior to bevacizumab in patients with elevated CEA, while this effect was markedly lower and lost statistical significance in patients with low CEA., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The XELAVIRI trial investigated the optimal treatment strategy for patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. We tested the noninferiority of initial treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, followed by the addition of irinotecan at first progression (arm A) versus upfront use of fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (arm B) in a 1:1 randomized, controlled phase III trial., Methods: The primary efficacy end point was time to failure of the strategy (TFS). Given a 90% CI, a power of 70%, and a one-sided α of .05, the margin for noninferiority was set at 0.8. In the case of demonstrated noninferiority of TFS, an analysis of symptomatic toxicities during TFS would define the superior strategy. Secondary end points included the effect of molecular subgroups on efficacy parameters., Results: A total of 421 randomly assigned patients (arm A: n = 212; arm B: n = 209) formed the full analysis set. Median age was 71 and 69 years, respectively. Noninferiority of TFS was not shown (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 90% CI, 0.73 to 1.02). In detail, patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors benefitted from combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.61; 90% CI, 0.46 to 0.82; P = .005), whereas patients with RAS mutant tumors (HR, 1.09; 90% CI, 0.81 to 1.46; P = .58) did not (Cox model for interaction of study arm and RAS status: P = .03). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival., Conclusion: Noninferiority of sequential escalation therapy compared with initial combination chemotherapy could not be demonstrated for TFS. RAS status may be important to guide therapy as treatment of patients with upfront combination therapy was clearly superior in RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, whereas sequential escalation chemotherapy seems to provide comparable results in patients with RAS mutant tumors.

Objectives: To assess the prognostic value of pre-therapeutic computed tomography (CT) attenuation of liver metastases for overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: In the open-label, randomised, prospective phase-III FIRE-3 trial, patients with histologically confirmed mCRC received fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Participating patients gave written informed consent prior to study entry. In CT at baseline (portal venous phase, slice thickness ≤5 mm), mean attenuation [Hounsfield units (HU)] of liver metastases was retrospectively assessed by semi-automated volumetry. Its prognostic influence on OS was analysed in Kaplan-Meier-analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression and an optimal threshold was determined., Results: In FIRE-3, 592 patients were enrolled between 2007 and 2012. Among the 347 patients eligible for liver volumetry, median baseline CT attenuation of liver metastases was 59.67 HU [interquartile range (IQR), 49.13, 68.85]. Increased attenuation was associated with longer OS {per 10 HU: hazard ratio (HR), 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78, 0.93], p < 0.001}. The optimised threshold (≥61.62 HU) was a strong predictor for increased OS [median, 21.3 vs 30.6 months; HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.47, 0.80), p < 0.001]. Multivariate regression controlling for correlated and further prognostic factors confirmed this [HR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45, 0.81), p = 0.001]. Furthermore, mean attenuation ≥61.62 HU was significantly associated with increased early tumour shrinkage (p = 0.002) and increased depth of response (p = 0.012)., Conclusions: Increased mean baseline CT attenuation of liver metastases may identify mCRC patients with prolonged OS and better tumour response., Key Points: • In colorectal cancer, increased attenuation of liver metastases in baseline computed tomography is a prognostic factor for prolonged OS (p < 0.001). • A threshold of ≥61.62 HU was determined as optimal cut-off to identify patients with prolonged OS (p < 0.001), early tumour shrinkage (p = 0.002) and increased depth of response (p = 0.012).

Objectives: To empirically determine thresholds for volumetric assessment of response and progress of liver metastases in line with the unidimensional RECIST thresholds., Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer initially enrolled in a multicentre clinical phase-III trial were included. In all CT scans, the longest axial diameters and volumes of hepatic lesions were determined semi-automatically. The sum of diameters and volumes of 1, ≤2 and ≤5 metastases were compared to all previous examinations. Volumetric thresholds corresponding to RECIST 1.1 thresholds were predicted with loess-regression. In sensitivity analysis, the concordances of proposed thresholds, weight-maximizing thresholds and thresholds from loess-regression were compared. Classification concordance for measurements of ≤2 metastases was further analyzed., Results: For measurements of ≤2 metastases, 348 patients with 629 metastases were included, resulting in 4,773 value pairs. Regression analysis yielded volumetric thresholds of -65.3% for a diameter change of -30%, and +64.6% for a diameter change of +20%. When comparing measurements of unidimensional RECIST assessment with volumetric measurements, there was a concordance of significant progress (≥+20% and ≥+65%) in 88.3% and of significant response (≤-30% and ≤-65%) in 85.0%., Conclusions: In patients with hepatic metastases, volumetric thresholds of +65% and -65% were yielded corresponding to RECIST thresholds of +20% and -30%., Key Points: • Volumes and diameters of liver metastases from colorectal cancer were determined. • Volumetric thresholds of +65%/-65% corresponding to RECIST 1.1 are proposed. • Comparing both measurements, concordance was 88.3% (significant progress) and 85.0% (significant response).

Purpose: To determine the prognostic impact of radiologically enlarged lymph nodes ≥ 10 mm on the survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer., Materials and Methods: The prospective, randomized, open-label FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial evaluated the first-line therapy of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer with fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab. In the RAS wild-type population (n = 400), adequately evaluable baseline computed tomographies (n = 339) were reviewed for enlarged regional and distant lymph nodes. Their prognostic relevance was retrospectively analyzed in uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regressions., Results: Median overall survival was 21.7 months in patients with enlarged lymph nodes and 33.2 months in patients without (hazard rate ratio [HR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.09; P < 0.001). This was confirmed in multivariable analysis (HR = 1.37, 95% CI, 1.02-1.83; P = 0.036). Progression-free survival of patients with enlarged lymph nodes showed a consistent but insignificant trend (9.9 vs. 11.1 months; HR = 1.23, 95% CI, 0.98-1.54; P = 0.072). Enlarged lymph nodes were also associated with BRAF-mutations (P = 0.004)., Conclusion: The presence of radiologically enlarged lymph nodes in baseline staging has a negative prognostic value beyond established and potential prognostic parameters., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), liver-limited disease (LLD) is associated with a higher chance of metastectomy leading to long-term survival. However, limited data describes the prognostic and predictive relevance of initially unresectable LLD with regard to targeted first-line therapy. The present analysis investigated the relevance of initially unresectable LLD in mCRC patients treated with targeted therapy against either the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF). The analysis was performed based on FIRE-3, a randomized phase III trial comparing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (anti-EGFR) or bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC. Of 400 patients, 133 (33.3%) had LLD and 267 (66.8%) had non-LLD. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LLD compared to non-LLD patients (36.0 vs. 25.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.87; p = 0.002). In a multivariate analysis also including secondary hepatic resection as time-dependent variable, LLD status was independently prognostic for OS (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91; p = 0.01). As assessed by interaction tests, treatment benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was independent of LLD status with regard to objective response rate (ORR), early tumour shrinkage ≥20% (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and OS (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, LLD could be identified as a prognostic factor in RAS-WT mCRC, which was independent of hepatic resection in patients treated with targeted therapy. LLD had no predictive relevance since benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab over bevacizumab was independent of LLD status., (© 2017 UICC.)

Background: The FIRE-3 trial investigated combination chemotherapy plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) not scheduled for upfront surgery. We aimed to determine the number of patients who present with potentially resectable disease during systemic first-line therapy and to compare the findings with study reports concerning resections and outcome., Patients and Methods: This evaluation of 448 patients was performed as central review blinded for treatment, other reviewers' evaluations and conducted interventions. Resectability was defined if at least 50% of the reviewers recommended surgical-based intervention. Overall survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Resectability increased from 22% (97/448) at baseline before treatment to 53% (238/448) at best response (P < 0.001), compared with an actual secondary resection rate for metastases of 16% (72/448). At baseline (23% versus 20%) and best response (53% versus 53%), potential resectability of metastases in this molecular unselected population was similar in cetuximab-treated patients versus bevacizumab-treated patients and not limited to patients with one-organ disease. The actual resection rate of metastases was significantly associated with treatment setting (P = 0.02; university hospital versus hospital/practice). Overall survival was 51.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.9-66.7) in patients with resectable disease who received surgery, 30.8 months (95% CI 26.6-34.9) in patients with resectable disease without surgery and 18.6 months (95% CI 15.8-21.3) in patients with unresectable disease (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the potential for conversion to resectability in mCRC, certain reluctance towards metastatic resections in clinical practice and the need for pre-planned and continuous evaluation for metastatic resection in high-volume centres. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov-Identifier: NCT00433927., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The therapy of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has undergone significant changes. Extended survival has been observed to be associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy., Evidence Acquisition: This review summarizes standards, developments and controversies on the management of these patients. Literature search was performed with focus on work published within the last ten years., Evidence Synthesis: Patients with CRLM should undergo surgery whenever possible with careful and experienced patient selection as hepatic resection offers the best long-term prognosis. The multidisciplinary approach has markedly evolved and has increased the number of patients in whom curative-intended surgery is possible. Patients with resectable metastases can undergo upfront surgery or may receive perioperative chemotherapy in selected cases, a decision which is under debate and remains individual. Patients with non-resectable metastases that may become resectable upon conversion treatment should receive polychemotherapy with or without local ablative therapy as pretreatment with the main goal of achieving resectability. In patients with synchronous CRLM, the optimal sequence of treatment remains unclear. Depending on the hepatic tumor burden and its dynamics as well as the type and stage of the primary tumor, simultaneous resection or either the sequential "bowel-first" or reversed "liver-first" approach represent suitable options to achieve complete tumor clearance., Conclusions: The improvements in the management of CRLM due to multidisciplinary treatment and novel developments are a great example of successfully pushing the boundaries of cure in metastatic cancer. Surgery aiming at complete tumor clearance represents the central instrument to achieve long-term survival.

Purpose: To assess the impact of primary tumor sidedness on outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) across treatment lines., Patients and Methods: Patients of the FIRE-3 trial (initial FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were separately evaluated according to primary tumor site differentiating left-sided (LPT) from right-sided primary tumors (RPT). Efficacy (i.e. progression-free survival (PFS2nd) and overall survival (OS2nd) of second-line therapy) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log rank test as well as Cox regression analyses. All analyses were also reported according to drug sequences., Results: 411 of 592 patients (69%) with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors received 2nd-line therapy has and had available information on primary tumor location, of those 309 patients (75%) presented with LPT. In patients with LPT, PFS2nd was markedly longer than in patients with RPT (6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-6.5] versus 3.8 months [95% CI 2.5-5.2], hazard ratio: 0.61 [95% CI 0.47-0.78], P<0.001). Differences in PFS2nd between study-arms were evident in patients with LPT, but not in patients with RPT (Cox model interaction test, P=0.12). Consistent observations were also made for OS2nd., Conclusion: This retrospective analysis of FIRE-3 indicates that efficacy of second-line therapy was significantly greater in patients with left-sided tumors as compared to right-sided tumors. This difference was driven by superior activity of second-line regimens of the initial cetuximab-arm as compared to the initial bevacizumab-arm in left-sided tumors. Our observations confirm the strong prognostic value of primary tumor location in second-line therapy of mCRC., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DPM: Honoraria: Merck, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Roche, MSD, SIRTEX. Travel Support: Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Servier. SS: Honoraria (Talks & Advisory boards): Amgen, Merck, Roche, Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi. LFvW: none. TD: none. AK: Honoraria: Merck, Roche. UVK: Honoraria: Gilead, MSD, Abbvie, Roche Pharma, Lilly, Amgen. SEAB: Advisory boards: Merck, Roche. Research grant: Roche. TH: none. CK:none. GS:none. FK: Honoraria/advisory boards: BMS, Celgene, Merck, Lilly, Merck, Sanofi, TevaWS. MM: Honoraria/travel support: Lilly, Amgen, Roche, Merck, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, AstraZeneca. JWH: honoraria for advisory board and speaker from Roche and travel support from Novartis. JCvE: Travel support: Apceth. SH: none. VH: Honoraria: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, SIRTEX. Consulting or Advisory Board: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, SIRTEX. Research funding: Merck, Amgen, Roche, SanofiTravel Accommodation expenses: Merck, Roche.

Background: We explored the impacts of sequential application of various treatment lines on survival kinetics. Therefore, differences in overall survival (OS) observed in FIRE-3 were investigated in the context of time and exposure to applied treatment., Patients and Methods: OS analyses (stratified by treatment with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were performed according to time intervals as well as using a Cox model to define changes of hazard ratio (HR) over time., Results: The fraction of patients with systemic treatment and time on treatment markedly decreases over treatment lines and time. OS evaluation by a Cox model indicated a trend towards a non-proportional hazard between treatment arms (P = 0.12/P = 0.09 for KRAS-intention-to-treat (ITT)/all-RAS wild-type populations, respectively). To improve the fit of the model, a change-point (point of curve separation) was estimated at 22.6 months (day 687) after randomisation. The HR between the two arms before 22.6 months was not significantly different from one. However, markedly different survival kinetics in favour of the cetuximab arm were apparent after the change-point (KRAS-ITT: P = 0.0018; HR, 0.60 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.83] and RAS: P = 0.0006; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.75])., Conclusion: The differences in OS favouring the cetuximab arm become apparent about 22.6 months after randomisation, indicating that only those patients who survive 22.6 months after randomisation benefit from the superiority of the cetuximab arm. When OS curves separate, only few patients receive active systemic treatment in short courses, suggesting that earlier treatment effects are responsible for later kinetics of survival curves., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This phase I, first in human, first in class clinical study aimed at evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of treatment with genetically modified mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) in combination with ganciclovir (GCV). MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 are genetically modified autologous MSCs used as vehicles for a cell-based gene therapy in patients with advanced gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma., Experimental Design: The study design consisted of a dose-escalation 3 + 3 design. All patients ( n = 6) were treated with up to three applications of MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101, followed by GCV infusions given on three consecutive days starting 48 hours after injection of MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101. Three of six patients received a total dose of 1.5 × 10 6 cells/kg. Two patients received three doses of 1 × 10 6 cells/kg, while one patient received only two doses of 1 × 10 6 cells/kg due to a SADR., Results: Six patients received MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101. No IMP-related serious adverse events occurred. Adverse-events related to IMP-injection were increased creatinine, cough, fever, and night sweat. TNF, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and sE-Selectin, showed that repeated application is immunologically safe, but induces a switch of the functional properties of monocytes to an inflammatory phenotype. Treatment induced stable disease in 4/6 patients, and progressive disease in 2/6 patients., Conclusion: Treatment with MSC&#95;apceth&#95;101 in combination with GCV demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability in patients with advanced gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jobst C. von Einem, Hans-Dieter Volk, Gerald Grütz, Christoph Salat, Oliver Stoetzer, Marlies Michl, Dominik P. Modest, Julian W. Holch, Martin Angele, Christiane Bruns and Hanno Niess: These authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. Sylvia Peter and Christine Guenther hold shares of apceth GmbH & Co. KG. Peter J. Nelson: The author performed contract research for apceth GmbH & Co. KG, Munich, Germany. Volker Heinemann has received financial grants to undertake this study from apceth GmbH & Co. KG.

Our aim was to explore the impact of the HER2/neu, HER3 receptor as well as their ligands' neuregulin (NRG1) expression on the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). NRG1, HER2/neu and HER3 expression was evaluated in 208 patients with mCRC receiving 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as the first-line treatment. Biomarker expression was correlated with the outcome of patients. NRG1 (low: 192 vs. high: 16), HER2/neu (low: 201 vs. high: 7) and HER3 (low: 69 vs. high: 139) expressions were assessed in 208 patients. High versus low NRG1 expression significantly affected progression-free survival (PFS) [4.7 vs. 8.2 months, hazard ratio (HR): 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.13; P=0.001], but not overall survival (OS) (15.5 vs. 20.7 months, HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.76-2.35; P=0.32). High versus low HER3 expression (PFS: 7.1 vs. 8.8 months, HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.50; P=0.50; OS: 19.8 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.70-1.30; P=0.75) and high compared with low HER2/neu expression (PFS: 7.7 vs. 8.0 months, HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.71-1.60; P=0.75; OS: 16.6 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.75-1.71; P=0.57) did not influence outcome. High NRG1 expression was associated with inferior PFS in the FIRE-1 trial. We did not detect a prognostic impact of HER2/neu and HER3 overexpression in mCRC. The frequency of overexpression was comparable with other studies.

Background: RAS and BRAF mutations have been identified as negative prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer. Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with RAS-mutant tumours needs to be further evaluated. Whether to treat patients with BRAF-mutant tumours with either bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies remains unclear., Methods: Patients treated within the FIRE-3 trial were retrospectively tested for BRAF and RAS mutations using formalin fixated paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumour material applying pyrosequencing for KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 mutations as far as for BRAF mutations. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimation and differences were expressed using the log-rank test. Overall response rate (ORR) was compared using Fisher's exact test. Data from a central independent radiological response evaluation were used to calculate early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR)., Results: Overall, 188 patients with RAS-mutant tumours and 48 with BRAF-mutant tumours were identified. In BRAF-mutant patients, ORR was numerically higher in the cetuximab versus the bevacizumab arm (52% versus 40%), while comparable results were achieved for progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, p = 0.56) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.79, p = 0.45). RAS mutation was associated with a trend towards lower ORR (37% versus 50.5%, p = 0.11) and shorter PFS (7.4 versus 9.7 months; HR 1.25; p = 0.14) in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab, but OS was comparable (19.1 versus 20.1 months; HR 1.05; p = 0.73), respectively. ETS identified subgroups sensitive to cetuximab-based treatment in both BRAF- (9/17) and RAS-mutant (18/48) patients and was associated with significantly longer OS. DpR was comparable between both treatment arms in RAS- and BRAF-mutant patients, respectively., Conclusions: In BRAF- and RAS-mutant patients, cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based treatment had comparable survival times. ETS represents an early parameter associated with the benefit from anti-EGFR, while this was not the case with vascular endothelial growth factor A blockade., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the introduction of novel effective treatment regimens like gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most aggressive epithelial tumors. Among the genetic alterations frequently found in PDAC, mutations in the KRAS gene might play a prognostic role regarding overall survival and may also have the potential to predict the efficacy of anti-EGFR treatment., Case Presentation: We report the clinical case of a 69 year old Caucasian female that was diagnosed with histologically confirmed locally advanced PDAC with lymph node involvement in August 2010. At the time of first diagnosis, tumor tissue obtained from an open regional lymph node biopsy showed a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with a wild type sequence within exon 2 (codon 12/13) of the KRAS gene. The patient initially received single-agent gemcitabine and a subsequent 5-FU-based chemoradiotherapy with a sequential maintenance chemotherapy with oral capecitabine resulting in a long term disease control. Local disease progression occurred in May 2014 and the patient underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy in September 2014. A novel KRAS gene mutation (c.35G > T, p.G12 V) in exon 2 (codon 12) was detected within the surgical specimen. As of January 2016 the patient is still alive and without evidence of the underlying disease., Conclusions: Specifically in the context of clinical trials and translational research in PDAC a re-assessment of molecular biomarkers, i. e. KRAS, at defined time points (e. g. relapse, disease progression, unusual clinical course) may be indicated in order to detect a potential switch in biomarker status during the course of disease.

We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non-ETS with efficacy of first-line and consecutive second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in FIRE-3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0-38.4) months in ETS patients, while non-ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2-26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0-25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1-14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first-line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first-line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second-line therapy. Progression-free survival in second-line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8-7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7-6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7-6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-4.3) months for PD. PFS of first-line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais-Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non-ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first-line FOLFIRI-based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second-line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients., (© 2016 UICC.)

Up to now, the efficacy of programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade in pancreatic cancer (PC) remains uncertain. Serum levels of soluble PD-1 and PD-L1 (sPD-1/sPD-L1) have been reported to be independent prognostic factors in solid tumors susceptible to checkpoint blockade. Provenience, regulation and immunologic function of sPD-1 and sPD-L1 in cancer are poorly understood. To the best of our knowledge, sPD-1 and sPD-L1 have not been measured conjointly in any cancer type yet. In contrast to other tumor entities, sPD-1/sPD-L1 levels did not indicate an adverse outcome in a cohort of 41 patients with advanced PC. We observed a close positive correlation of sPD-L1 levels with sPD-1 in patients with advanced PC, suggesting a common provenience and regulation of sPD-1 and sPD-L1 in cancer patients. Higher sPD-L1 levels were present in patients with elevated C-reactive protein or strong tumoral T cell infiltration, while no correlation of sPD-L1 levels with tumoral PD-L1 expression was found. Our findings indicate that sPD-1 and sPD-L1 are markers of systemic inflammation in (pancreatic) cancer. In a subset of PC patients, elevation in sPD-L1 levels might be caused by an inflammatory tumor type - independent of tumoral PD-L1 expression.

Background: Few studies report the incidence of metastatic patterns in colorectal cancer. Furthermore, little is known about dynamic aspects of these metastases during the course of disease., Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 385 patients who received anti-tumor treatment at our institution (Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Grosshadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany) for metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2007 and 2014. We reviewed all available imaging results of these patients to document the presence and detailed localization of metastases., Results: Most of the evaluated patients were initially diagnosed with metastases in the liver (70%), followed by the lungs (24%), distant lymph nodes (16%), and peritoneum (15%), besides rare anatomical sites (<5%). Colon and rectal cancer as well as synchronous and metachronous metastases differed with regard to the pattern of individual metastatic sites. The median time to first progressive disease (PD) with new metastases was 12.6 months. The time intervals between first and second as well as second and third PD with new metastases were comparable with 10.5 and 10.8 months, respectively. At initial diagnosis, the mean number of metastatic sites was 1.4 and increased to 2.6 at the third PD with new metastases. For patients with initially one metastatic site, the mean number increased to 2.2., Conclusion: The present analysis provides detailed information on the pattern and evolution of colorectal cancer metastases over time. Thus, it may establish the basis for prospective future research in this field.

Background: Retrospective subgroup analyses suggest that primary tumour location (PTL) has a prognostic importance and relates to response to targeted therapy., Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials available up to October 2016, which assessed the relevance of PTL in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Right- and left-sided colorectal cancers were differentiated (RC and LC)., Results: In 13 first-line randomised controlled trials and one prospective pharmacogenetic study, RC was associated with a significantly worse prognosis compared with LC (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival: 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.70; P < 0.0001). A meta-analysis of PRIME and CRYSTAL study suggests that PTL was predictive of survival benefit from addition of anti-EGFR antibody to standard chemotherapy in patients with RAS wild-type tumour (overall survival, HR for LC: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.58-0.83; P < 0.0001 and HR for RC: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68-1.35; P = 0.802). A meta-analysis of FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306, CALGB/SWOG 80405 and PEAK study indicates that patients with RAS wild-type LC had a significantly greater survival benefit from anti-EGFR treatment compared with anti-VEGF treatment when added to standard chemotherapy (HR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58-0.85; P = 0.0003). By contrast, in patients with RC, benefit from standard therapy was poor and bevacizumab-based treatment was numerically associated with longer survival (HR 1.3; 95% CI: 0.97-1.74; P = 0.081)., Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrates that PTL is prognostic in mCRC. Further, it supports the conclusion that patients with left-sided RAS wild-type mCRC should be preferentially treated with an anti-EGFR antibody. In right-sided mCRC, chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a treatment option, but optimal treatment has yet to be defined., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a very rare cancer, constituting 1 % of all malignant non-endocrine pancreatic tumors. Only very limited data exist to guide treatment in patients with advanced ACC., Methods: Between 2000 and 2015, 15 patients with ACC were diagnosed and/or treated at our high-volume comprehensive cancer center. Medical records and correlating serum levels of the potential serum tumor markers CA 19-9, CEA and lipase were analyzed retrospectively., Results: A substantial antitumor activity was observed for treatment regimens containing 5-FU and oxaliplatin with partial responses or prolonged disease stabilizations (>12 months) observed in 6 out of 7 patients (86 %). Activity was also observed for single-agent 5-FU and its oral prodrugs. Serum lipase levels were elevated in 7 of 12 patients with advanced disease (58 %), whereas CEA and CA 19-9 seemed to be of minor importance for ACC (elevated pre-treatment levels in 4/12 and 3/12 cases, respectively). In selected patients, repeated serum lipase measurements were available and accurately predicted response to chemotherapy and relapse after surgery., Conclusions: 5-FU- and oxaliplatin-containing regimens are active in advanced ACC. Lipase kinetics may be a useful novel tool to monitor the course of disease as well as treatment effects in ACC.

Background: FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival., Methods: FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927., Findings: In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups., Interpretation: This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup., Funding: Merck KGaA and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)