Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Colorectal cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The first and second lines of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil. However, treatment following progression on the first and second line is still unclear. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies investigating the use of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab versus trifluridine-tipiracil alone for mCRC. We used RStudio version 4.2.3; and we considered p < 0.05 significant. Seven studies and 1,182 patients were included - 602 (51%) received trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab. Compared with control, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.63; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.70; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with bevacizumab. The objective response rate (ORR) (RR 3.14; 95% CI 1.51-6.51; p = 0.002) and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.28-2.16; p = 0.0001) favored the intervention. Regarding adverse events, the intervention had a higher rate of neutropenia (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.19-1.59; p = 0.00001), whereas the monotherapy group had a higher risk of anemia (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001). Our results support that the addition of bevacizumab is associated with a significant benefit in PFS, OS, ORR and DCR.

Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Using Y-90 Resin Microspheres for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This literature review and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 (Y-90) resin microspheres, regorafenib (REG), trifluridine-tipiracil (TFD/TPI), and best supportive care (BSC) in adult patients with chemotherapy-refractory or chemotherapy-intolerant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: In light of recently published data, the literature was searched to complement and update a review published in 2018. Studies up to December 2022 comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or incidence of adverse events (AE) were included. The NMA compared hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, with eight studies added (none addressing SIRT). All active treatments improved OS in relation to BSC. SIRT had the longest OS among all treatments, although without statistically significant differences (HR [95% credible interval] for SIRT, 0.48 [0.27, 0.87]; TFD/TPI, 0.62 [0.46, 0.83]; REG, 0.78 [0.57, 1.05]) in a fixed effects model. Information regarding SIRT was insufficient for PFS analysis, and TFD/TPI was the best intervention (HR 2.26 [1.6, 3.18]). One SIRT study reported radioembolization-induced liver disease in > 10% of the sample; this was symptomatically managed. Non-haematological AEs (hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue, diarrhoea, hypertension, rash or desquamation) were more common with REG, while haematological events (neutropoenia, leukopenia, and anaemia) were more common with TFD/TPI. CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports SIRT treatment in patients with chemotherapy-refractory or chemotherapy-intolerant mCRC compared to newer oral agents, with comparable OS and low incidence of AEs.

Delphi consensus for the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for third-line (3L) or subsequent treatment. The aim of this study is to know the opinion of experts on the most appropriate treatment options for mCRC in 3L and to clarify certain clinical decisions in Spain. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, a group of experts discussed the treatment in 3L of patients with mCRC and developed a questionnaire with 21 items divided into 5 sections. RESULTS: After 2 rounds, the 67 panelists consulted agreed on 17 items (81%). They considered that the main objective of 3L is to equally increase survival and improve patients' quality of life (QoL), but preferably the QoL. It was agreed that patients with mCRC in 3L prefer to receive active versus symptomatic treatment. Panelists considered trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) to be the best oral treatment available to them in 3L. In patients with MSI-H or dMMR and BRAF V600E, the panelists mostly prefer targeted treatments. Panelists agreed the use of a therapeutic sequence that not only increases outcomes but also allows patients to be treated later. Finally, it was agreed that FTD/TPI has a mechanism of action that allows it to be used in patients refractory to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil. CONCLUSION: The experts agreed with most of the proposed items on 3L treatment of mCRC, prioritizing therapeutic options that increase survival and preserve QoL, while facilitating the possibility that patients can continue to be treated later.

Trifluridina/cloridrato de tipiracila no tratamento de pacientes com carcinoma colorretal metastático politratados: uma análise de custo-efetividade na perspectiva de pagadores privados no Brasil / Trifluridine/tipiracil hydrochloride in the treatment of polytreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the private payer perspective in Brazil

Objetivo: Avaliar a custo-efetividade da trifluridina/cloridrato de tipiracila (FTD/TPI) em comparação ao melhor cuidado de suporte (sigla em inglês BSC, best supportive care) e ao regorafenibe para o tratamento em pacientes com câncer colorretal metastático (CCRm) politratados (terceira linha ou linhas posteriores) sob a perspectiva de pagadores privados no Brasil. Métodos: Foi construído um modelo de sobrevida particionado considerando três estados de saúde. A efetividade foi medida em anos-vida ganhos e Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Os custos foram obtidos a partir da perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro considerando um horizonte temporal de cinco anos. Também foram realizadas análises de sensibilidade univariada e probabilística para avaliar a robustez do modelo. Resultados: A utilização de FTD/TPI pode gerar melhores desfechos clínicos versus BSC e economia de recursos versus regorafenibe. FTD/TPI proporcionou mais 0,098 anos de vida por paciente e uma qualidade de vida incremental de 0,072, comparada ao BSC. Já em relação ao regorafenibe, a FTD/TPI apresentou redução de R$ 2.088,49 nos custos por paciente e benefícios clínicos com incremento marginal. Conclusão: FTD/TPI representa uma opção de tratamento de CCRm custo-efetiva, comparada ao regorafenibe, na perspectiva de pagadores privados no Brasil

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil chloridrate (FTD/TPI) compared to best supportative care (BSC) and regorafenib for the treatment of polytreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) (3rd line or later lines) in the private payer perspective in Brazil. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed based on three health states. Effectiveness was measured in life-years gained and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Costs were obtained from the perspective of the supplementary healthcare system in Brazil considering a time horizon of five years. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Results: The use of FTD/TPI may generate better clinical outcomes versus BSC and resource savings versus regorafenib. FTD/TPI provided more 0,098 years of life per patient and an incremental quality of life of 0,072 compared to BSC. Regarding regorafenib, FTD/TPI provided a cost reduction of R$ 2.088,49 per patient and similar clinical benefits. Conclusion: FTD/TPI represents a cost-effective treatment option for mCRC compared to regorafenib from the perspective of the supplementary healthcare system in Brazil

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in third-line and beyond for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in routine clinical practice: patterns of use and prognostic nomogram.

INTRODUCTION: Trifluridine/tipiracil combination has shown a benefit over placebo in the treatment of patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination in the real-life setting at eight Galician centers in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of a cohort of patients with mCRC in treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil within usual clinical practice who have been previously treated or are not considered candidates for treatment with available therapies. RESULTS: A total of 160 mCRC patients were included. Our data showed that 11.9% of patients achieved disease control. Median progression-free survival was 2.75 months; at 5.66 months follow-up, median overall survival was 7.94 months. Asthenia and neutropenia (48.1% both) were the most frequent adverse events. Overall survival was lower in patients with ECOG 2, multiple metastatic sites, platelets count 350,000/µl, alkaline phosphatase > 500 IU/l, and carcinoembryonic antigen > 10 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm the efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in chemorefractory mCRC patients. However, patients in clinical practice differ from patients in clinical trials. Due to this, prognostic factors have special importance to offer the best therapeutic approach.

Cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) for heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102), a novel oral cytotoxic chemotherapy, significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAS102 in the third-line or later treatment for this population from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate advanced gastric cancer, including three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. Model inputs were derived from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TAGS trial, NCT02500043). Utilities were extracted from public resources. Costs were calculated from an American payer perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: From the US payer perspective, treatment with TAS102 for patients with heavily pretreated advanced gastric cancer was estimated to increase costs by $59,180 compared with the placebo, with a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $986,333 per QALY. The costs for progression-free survival of TAS102 group had the greatest impact on the ICERs, as well as the cost of TAS102. CONCLUSION: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) is not a cost-effective choice for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer from an American payer perspective.