Dermatology-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab (Pmab) maintenance after FOLFOX + Pmab induction: a prespecified secondary analysis of the phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial.

BACKGROUND: The key endpoints for the assessment of the effect of maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are survival and quality-of-life outcomes. We aimed to compare dermatology-related quality of life (DRQOL) in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) + panitumumab (Pmab) versus FU/FA alone as maintenance therapy after folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin + Pmab induction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212; NCT01991873) trial included 387 patients at 70 community/academic sites in Germany. For this prespecified secondary analysis, DRQOL outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (FACT-EGFRI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Skindex-16 questionnaires at every second cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. RESULTS: At least one DRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 310/377 (82%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 216/248 (87%) patients who were randomized and received maintenance therapy. Patients who experienced skin toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) during induction therapy had significantly worse DRQOL according to all three measures, compared to those who did not [i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 2 -12.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.01 to -5.73; P < 0.001]. During maintenance therapy, significantly improved recovery was observed in all DRQOL measures for patients receiving FU/FA, compared to those receiving additional Pmab (i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 6 -16.53; 95% CI -22.68 to -10.38; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a phase II randomized clinical trial, patient-reported DRQOL outcomes correlated with skin toxicity according to NCI-CTCAE during induction therapy. Maintenance therapy with FU/FA + Pmab was associated with deteriorated DRQOL versus FU/FA alone in patients with RAS wt mCRC.

Evaluation of the inflammation-based modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a post hoc analysis of the randomized phase III XELAVIRI trial (AIO KRK0110).

BACKGROUND: The inflammation-based modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) combines serum levels of C-reactive protein and albumin and was shown to predict survival in advanced cancer. We aimed to elucidate the prognostic impact of mGPS on survival as well as its predictive value when combined with gender in unselected metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients receiving first-line chemotherapy in the randomized phase III XELAVIRI trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In XELAVIRI, mCRC patients were treated with either fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab followed by additional irinotecan at first progression (sequential treatment arm; Arm A) or upfront combination of fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab/irinotecan (intensive treatment arm; Arm B). In the present post hoc analysis, survival was evaluated with respect to the assorted mGPS categories 0, 1 or 2. Interaction between mGPS and gender was analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 421 mCRC patients treated in XELAVIRI, 362 [119 women (32.9%) and 243 men (67.1%)] were assessable. For the entire study population a significant association between mGPS and overall survival (OS) was observed [mGPS = 0: median 28.9 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 25.9-33.6 months; mGPS = 1: median 21.4 months, 95% CI 17.6-26.1 months; mGPS = 2: median 16.8 months, 95% CI 14.3-21.2 months; P < 0.00001]. Similar results were found when comparing progression-free survival between groups. The effect of mGPS on survival did not depend on the applied treatment regimen (P = 0.21). In female patients, a trend towards longer OS was observed in Arm A versus Arm B, with this effect being clearly more pronounced in the mGPS cohort 0 (41.6 versus 25.5 months; P = 0.056). By contrast, median OS was longer in male patients with an mGPS of 1-2 treated in Arm B versus Arm A (20.8 versus 17.4 months; P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the role of mGPS as an independent predictor of OS regardless of the treatment regimen in mCRC patients receiving first-line treatment. mGPS may help identify gender-specific subgroups that benefit more or less from upfront intensive therapy.

Impact of sex on the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil and folinic acid versus fluorouracil and folinic acid alone as maintenance therapy in RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subgroup analysis of the PanaMa-study (AIO-KRK-0212).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are usually conducted irrespective of sex. Sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, however, are gaining interest. METHODS: PanaMa investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) versus FU/FA alone after induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. In this post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex. Evaluated efficacy endpoints during maintenance treatment were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate during maintenance therapy. Safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events during maintenance therapy. RESULTS: In total, 165 male and 83 female patients were randomized and treated. Male and female patients showed numerically better objective response rates with Pmab, without reaching statistical significance. Male patients derived a significant benefit from the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment with regard to PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.88; P = 0.006] that was not observed in female patients (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53-1.35; P = 0.491). The better PFS for male patients treated with Pmab did not translate into improved OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P = 0.452). Female patients showed numerically improved OS when treated with Pmab. There was no difference in the total of grade ≥3 adverse events during maintenance regarding sex (P = 0.791). Female patients, however, had a higher rate of any grade nausea, diarrhea and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: In the PanaMa trial, the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC with FU/FA improved the outcome in terms of the primary endpoint (PFS) particularly in male patients. Female patients did not show the same benefit while experiencing higher rates of adverse events. Our results support the development of sex-specific protocols.

Study protocol of the FIRE-8 (AIO-KRK/YMO-0519) trial: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II trial investigating the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Initial systemic therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually based on two- or three-drug chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine), oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, combined with either anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) or, for RAS wild-type (WT) tumors, anti-EGFR antibodies (panitumumab or cetuximab). Recommendations for patients who are not eligible for intensive combination therapies are limited and include fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab or single agent anti-EGFR antibody treatment. The use of a monochemotherapy concept of trifluridine/ tipiracil in combination with monoclonal antibodies is not approved for first-line therapy, yet. Results from the phase II TASCO trial evaluating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus bevacicumab in first-line treatment of mCRC patients and from the phase I/II APOLLON trial investigating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus panitumumab in pre-treated mCRC patients suggest favourable activity and tolerability of these new therapeutic approaches. METHODS: FIRE-8 ( NCT05007132 ) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study which aims to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA), orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, q28 days) plus either the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (6 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm A] or (as control arm) the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm B] in RAS WT mCRC patients. The primary objective is to demonstrate an improved objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 from 30% (control arm) to 55% with panitumumab. With a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 138 evaluable patients are needed. Given an estimated drop-out rate of 10%, 153 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC patients. The administration of anti-EGFR antibodies rather than anti-VEGF antibodies in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil may result in an increased initial efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2019-004223-20 . Registered October 22, 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05007132 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Dynamics in treatment response and disease progression of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with focus on BRAF status and primary tumor location: analysis of untreated RAS-wild-type mCRC patients receiving FOLFOXIRI either with or without panitumumab in the VOLFI trial (AIO KRK0109).

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.

[Treatment of colorectal and non-colorectal liver metastases: rationale for neoadjuvant therapeutic concepts]. / Therapie kolorektaler und nichtkolorektaler Lebermetastasen: Sinnhaftigkeit neoadjuvanter Therapiekonzepte.

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.

Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.

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.

Treatment sequencing in metastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

Relevance of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen for first-line treatment against metastatic colorectal cancer with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

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.

Surgical treatment options following chemotherapy plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer-central evaluation of FIRE-3.

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.

Evaluation of survival across several treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of the FIRE-3 trial (AIO KRK0306).

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.

Impact of BRAF and RAS mutations on first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab: analysis of the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

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.

Outcome according to KRAS-, NRAS- and BRAF-mutation as well as KRAS mutation variants: pooled analysis of five randomized trials in metastatic colorectal cancer by the AIO colorectal cancer study group.

BACKGROUND: To explore the impact of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations as well as KRAS mutation variants in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1239 patients from five randomized trials (FIRE-1, FIRE-3, AIOKRK0207, AIOKRK0604, RO91) were included into the analysis. Outcome was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox models. RESULTS: In 664 tumors, no mutation was detected, 462 tumors were diagnosed with KRAS-, 39 patients with NRAS- and 74 patients with BRAF-mutation. Mutations in KRAS were associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [multivariate hazard ratio (HR) for PFS: 1.20 (1.02-1.42), P = 0.03; multivariate HR for OS: 1.41 (1.17-1.70), P < 0.001]. BRAF mutation was also associated with inferior PFS [multivariate HR: 2.19 (1.59-3.02), P < 0.001] and OS [multivariate HR: 2.99 (2.10-4.25), P < 0.001]. Among specific KRAS mutation variants, the KRAS G12C-variant (n = 28) correlated with inferior OS compared with unmutated tumors [multivariate HR 2.26 (1.25-4.1), P = 0.001]. A similar trend for OS was seen in the KRAS G13D-variant [n = 71, multivariate HR 1.46 (0.96-2.22), P = 0.10]. More frequent KRAS exon 2 variants like G12D [n = 152, multivariate HR 1.17 (0.86-1.6), P = 0.81] and G12V [n = 92, multivariate HR 1.27 (0.87-1.86), P = 0.57] did not have significant impact on OS. CONCLUSION: Mutations in KRAS and BRAF were associated with inferior PFS and OS of mCRC patients compared with patients with non-mutated tumors. KRAS exon 2 mutation variants were associated with heterogeneous outcome compared with unmutated tumors with KRAS G12C and G13D (trend) being associated with rather poor survival.

CEA response is associated with tumor response and survival in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type and extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

BACKGROUND: To examine the relation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response with tumor response and survival in patients with (K)RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the FIRE-3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CEA response assessed as the percentage of CEA decrease from baseline to nadir was evaluated for its association with tumor response and survival. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed an optimal cut-off value of 75% using the maximum of sensitivity and specificity for CEA response to discriminate CEA responders from non-responders. In addition, the time to CEA nadir was calculated. RESULTS: Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 472 were eligible for analysis of CEA (cetuximab arm: 230 and bevacizumab arm: 242). Maximal relative CEA decrease (%) significantly (P = 0.003) differed between the cetuximab arm (median 83.0%; IQR 40.9%-94.7%) and the bevacizumab arm (median 72.3%; IQR 26.3%-91.0%). In a longitudinal analysis, the CEA decrease occurred faster in the cetuximab arm and was greater than in the bevacizumab arm at all evaluated time points until 56 weeks after treatment start. CEA nadir occurred after 3.3 months (cetuximab arm) and 3.5 months (bevacizumab arm), (P = 0.49). In the cetuximab arm, CEA responders showed a significantly longer progression-free survival [11.8 versus 7.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.53; 95% Cl, 1.15-2.04; P = 0.004] and longer overall survival (36.6 versus 21.3 months; HR 1.73; 95% Cl, 1.24-2.43; P = 0.001) than CEA non-responders. Analysis of extended RAS wild-type patients revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In the FIRE-3 trial, CEA decrease was significantly faster and greater in the cetuximab arm than in the bevacizumab arm and correlated with the prolonged survival observed in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433927 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AIO KRK0306 FIRE-3.

Influence of mRNA expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin on outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment (FIRE 1-trial).

Our aim was to investigate the impact of EREG and AREG mRNA expression (by RT-qPCR) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In addition, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (by immunohistochemistry) as well as RAS-and PIK3CA-mutations (by pyrosequencing) were assessed. Tumors of 208 mCRC patients receiving 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FUFIRI) or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) within the FIRE-1 trial were analyzed for mutations. Molecular characteristics were correlated with response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). mRNA expression was evaluated using ROC-analysis in 192 tumors (AREG high n = 31 vs. low n = 161; EREG high n = 89 vs. low n = 103). High versus low AREG expression was associated with PFS of 10.0 versus 8.0 months (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.402-0.940, p = 0.03) and OS of 24.6 versus 18.7 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.476-1.078, p = 0.11). High versus low EREG expression correlated with prolonged PFS (9.4 vs. 6.8 months, HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.460-0.846, p = 0.002) and OS (25.8 vs. 15.5 months, HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.351-0.657, p < 0.001). The positive prognostic effect of high EREG expression was confirmed in a multivariate analysis and was neither affected by EGFR expression nor by mutations of RAS- and PIK3CA-genes. EREG expression appears as an independent prognostic marker in patients with mCRC receiving first-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

[Significance of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Gastrointestinal Disorders]. / Bedeutung mesenchymaler Stammzellen in der Viszeralmedizin.

In this review we summarise the recent developments regarding the experimental and clinical use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), focusing mainly on the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. Next to their relevance in the field of regenerative medicine and immunology, this population of cells has also raised great expectations for possible applications in cancer therapy. While clinical trials were able to demonstrate the efficacy of MSCs in cases of inflammatory bowel disease and degenerative conditions of the liver, controversial results have been presented regarding their antineoplastic potential in gastrointestinal tumours. MSCs can differentiate into a large variety of specialised cells. They are capable of regulating both wound healing and immune responses through paracrine and endocrine signalling. Moreover, MSCs can be transfected with a great number of different therapeutic genes - considering their ability to selectively migrate towards neoplastic tissues, this feature allows for targeted therapy of solid tumours. Transfected genes can be designed so that they are expressed exclusively in the vicinity of the tumour, eventually triggering apoptosis in cancer cells. In this review, we demonstrate the natural distribution of exogenously applied MSCs in the host. Furthermore, we mention various methods of tracking MSCs in vivo and different parameters of administration that tend to influence therapeutic outcome (e.g., origin of MSCs, mode of application, or the potency of transfected genes). Finally, this review points out the hazards of MSC therapy, emphasising the risks related to their widespread clinical use.

Tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9 correlate with radiological imaging in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy.

In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), radiological imaging represents the current standard to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy. However, with growing knowledge about tumor biology, other diagnostic tools become of interest which can supplement radiology. The aim of the present study was to examine the correlation of tumor and serum markers with radiological imaging in patients with mCRC receiving first-line therapy. Patients were included if tumor (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9)) and serum marker (lactatdehydrogenase (LDH), γ-glutamyltransferase (γGT), alkaline phosphatase (AP), C-reactive protein (CRP), leucocyte count (WBC), hemoglobin (Hb)) levels were available at baseline and at least two times during treatment. The decline and increase of tumor and serum markers over time were approximated for each patient by estimating slopes depending on the radiological assessment. A linear mixed effects multiple regression model for each subject was used to evaluate the intra-class correlation of these slopes modeling tumor and serum marker changes with radiological imaging. Data of 124 patients (41 female, 83 male; median age 62.9 years, range 27-85) who received first-line chemotherapy for mCRC from 11/2007 to 04/2010 were analyzed retrospectively. CEA level slopes (n = 49; slopes = 102) differed between radiologically determined progressive disease (PD) and partial response (PR) (p = 0.005) and between PD and stable disease (SD) (p = 0.042). CA 19-9 level slopes (n = 57; slopes = 127) also showed a significant difference between PD and PR (p = 0.002) and PD and SD (p = 0.058). Furthermore, CRP slopes (n = 62; slopes = 134) differed significantly between PD and PR (p = 0.009). For LDH, ALP, γGT, Hb, and WBC, no correlations were observed. The results indicate the correlation of the tumor markers CEA, CA 19-9, and the serum marker CRP with radiological imaging in patients with mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy. Further data analyses would be helpful to develop a predictive model for tumor response based on an early tumor marker increase or decrease.

Left-sided primary tumors are associated with favorable prognosis in patients with KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy: an analysis of the AIO KRK-0104 trial.

PURPOSE: AIO KRK-0104 investigated first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with cetuximab, capecitabine and irinotecan versus cetuximab, capecitabine and oxaliplatin. This analysis investigated the impact of primary tumor location on outcome of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Left-sided primary tumors were defined as tumors from rectum to left flexure, while tumors in the remaining colon were regarded right sided. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate were correlated with primary tumor location. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate interaction between primary tumor location and KRAS mutation. RESULTS: Of 146 patients of the AIO KRK-0104 trial, 100 patients presented left-sided (of those 68 KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type) and 46 patients right-sided primary tumors (of those 27 KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type). Left-sided tumors were associated with significantly longer OS (p = 0.016, HR = 0.63) and PFS (p = 0.02, HR = 0.67) as compared to right-sided tumors. These effects were present in the KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type population (HR OS: 0.42; HR PFS: 0.54), while no impact of primary tumor location was evident in patients with KRAS codon 12/13 mutant tumors (HR OS: 1.3; HR PFS: 1.01). A significant interaction of KRAS status and primary tumor location concerning OS and PFS was observed. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that primary tumor location and KRAS codon 12/13 mutational status interact on the outcome of patients with mCRC receiving cetuximab-based first-line therapy. Left-sided primary tumor location might be a predictor of cetuximab efficacy.

[Chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer]. / Chemotherapie des metastasierten kolorektalen Karzinoms.

Increasing numbers of therapeutic options are becoming available for the systemic treatment of metastasized colorectal cancer (mCRC) which emphasizes the need for strategic decision making and planning across multiple lines of treatment. The choice of first-line therapy is influenced by clinical and molecular characteristics of patients and tumors, such as (K-)RAS gene mutations with respect to therapy guidance of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies. First-line therapy is the major determinant of subsequent treatment regimens and can therefore be considered as the key decision in patients with mCRC. The German standard for first-line therapy in the majority of patients includes chemotherapy in combination with biological agents, with antibodies targeting EGFR possibly being the preferable option in patients with (K-)RAS wild-type tumors. The development of effective therapeutic strategies in patients with (K-)RAS mutant mCRC tumors must be promoted in the future and requires intensive research because the therapy options for this group of patients are very limited.