A Cross-Sectional Validation Study of Camry EH101 versus JAMAR Plus Handheld Dynamometers in Colorectal Cancer Patients and Their Correlations with Bioelectrical Impedance and Nutritional Status.

BACKGROUND: Reduced muscle strength (dynapenia) and mass (atrophy) are prognostic factors in oncology. Measuring maximal handgrip strength with dynamometers is feasible but limited by the cost of the reference device (JAMAR). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on colorectal cancer outpatients treated with chemotherapy or under active surveillance in our center from September 2022 to July 2023. Accuracy, reliability, and concordance were compared for two handheld dynamometers: the JAMAR Plus (the gold-standard device) and the Camry EH101 (a low-cost index device). A simultaneous nutritional diagnosis with GLIM criteria and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 134 participants were included. The median of maximal strength for the JAMAR Plus had a non-significant difference of 1.4 kg from the Camry EH101. The accuracy and reliability of the devices were high. Bland-Altman analysis showed a 0.8 kg bias and -4.1 to 5.6 kg limits of agreement (LoA); a 0.1 kg bias and -5.3 to 5.4 kg LoA in men; a 1.5 kg bias and -2.2 to 5.3 kg LoA in women. In total, 29.85% of the participants were malnourished. Prevalence of dynapenia increased from 3.67% with the JAMAR Plus to 5.14% with the Camry EH101. Both devices had a moderate and significant correlation with BIA-estimated muscle mass. CONCLUSIONS: The Camry EH101 was a cost-effective alternative to JAMAR Plus in our sample.

Single-Agent Regorafenib in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients with Any RAS or BRAF Mutation Previously Treated with FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab (PREVIUM Trial).

LESSONS LEARNED: RAS- or BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) progressing after first-line treatment have a poor prognosis.European and U.S. guidelines include the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib as a standard option for second-line therapy and beyond, based on the results of the randomized phase III CORRECT trial demonstrating improvement in survival.Although stopped prematurely for failing to accrue, the PREVIUM trial, the first prospective interventional study exploring regorafenib as second-line treatment for patients with mCRC bearing RAS or BRAF mutations, failed to demonstrate clinical activity in the population analyzed. BACKGROUND: Patients with RAS- or BRAF-mutated (mut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) progressing on first-line bevacizumab plus 5-FU/irinotecan/oxaliplatin (FOLFOXIRI) have a poor prognosis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in this population. METHODS: Regorafenib was administered daily for 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle until disease progression or other reason. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF was mutated in mCRC samples in 60%, 20%, and 13% of patients, respectively. Median time from initial diagnosis of metastases to the start of regorafenib and treatment duration was 13.8 months and 7 weeks, respectively. Reasons for discontinuation included disease progression (80%), investigator decision (13%), and adverse events (AEs; 7%). Seven patients (47%) required dose reduction, mostly for asthenia (43%). The most common regorafenib-related grade 3 AEs were asthenia (33%), dysphonia (13%), and hypertension (13%) (Table 1). There were no grade 4 toxicities. No patient was progression-free at 6 months. Median PFS, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) were 2.2, 2.0, and 3.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although stopped prematurely for failing to accrue, in the population analyzed, regorafenib failed to demonstrate clinical activity in KRAS- or BRAF-mutated mCRC with progression following first-line with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, although tolerability was acceptable. Our trial suggests that exploring regorafenib efficacy in an earlier line of therapy should not be undertaken without better population refinement.

Capecitabine and irinotecan with bevacizumab 2-weekly for metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II AVAXIRI study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of chemotherapeutic agents is not firmly established for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II multi-centre study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a standard capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) regimen with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with mCRC. METHODS: Patients received intravenous irinotecan 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (800 mg/m(2) for patients >65 years of age) twice daily on days 2-8, followed by a 1-week rest, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion on day 1 every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included in the intention-to-treat and safety populations. Progression-free survival at 9 months was 61%. The overall response and disease control rates were 51% and 84%, respectively. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 11.9 and 24.8 months, respectively. 48 patients (62%) had at least one grade 3/4 adverse event, the most common being asthenia, diarrhoea and neutropenia. Quality of life varied little over the study period with mean visual analogue scale general health scores ranging from 71 to 76 over cycles 1-11. CONCLUSION: Our study found irinotecan and capecitabine administered fortnightly with bevacizumab in patients with mCRC to be an effective and tolerable regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00875771. Trial registration date: 04/02/2009.

First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.