Peri-operative chemotherapy for the treatment of resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The role of peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) remains to be defined. This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IV CRC by performing a meta-analysis of relevant trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a literature search to identify trials comparing patients with stage IV CRC receiving peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery with patients undergoing surgery alone. The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated to assess any survival advantage of peri-operative chemotherapy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight trials conducted on a total of 1174 patients were identified by a literature search. In these trials, HR estimates suggested that peri-operative chemotherapy yielded no survival advantage over surgery alone (HR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.8-1.10; <it>p </it>= 0.43). In a subset analysis on intra-arterial chemotherapy alone, no survival benefit was evident (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; <it>p </it>= 0.96; I²= 30%), whereas in the trials involving systemic chemotherapy, the difference between the groups approached statistical significance (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.04; <it>p </it>= 0.08; I²= 0%). Both peri-operative treatment groups had a significant recurrence-free survival benefit (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95; <it>P </it>= 0.01 for hepatic arterial infusion; and HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91; <it>p </it>= 0.003 for systemic therapy). The toxicities of chemotherapy were acceptable in most trials.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This is the first meta-analysis demonstrating the importance of peri-operative chemotherapy in the treatment of resected stage IV CRC. Although the results must be carefully interpreted because of some limitations, critical issues were identified that must be resolved by future studies.</p

Adjuvante Therapie des Kolonkarzinoms

Adjuvant Therapy in Colon Cancer The goal of improving adjuvant treatment can be reached in two ways: firstly, by developing more effective drugs and protocols and, secondly, by selecting suitable patients on the basis of clinical and molecular factors. In UICC (Union internationale contre le cancer) stage II, microsatellite instability (MSI) is a strong prognostic factor. Whether it can also be used as a predictive marker is currently a matter of controversy because the available data are contradictory. The question whether or not the MSI status should be checked before treatment decisions are made in stage II patients can therefore not be clearly answered at present. For adjuvant treatment in stage III, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX) there is now a new protocol available that is based on the orally administered prodrug capecitabine. With regard to the question of how much older patients in this stage may also benefit from a combination chemotherapy, new - and contradictory - data have emerged recently: firstly, preliminary results of two new studies have given rise to safety concerns and, secondly, an analysis by the `ACCENT Collaborative Group' indicated lower efficacy of the `newer' adjuvant protocols in older people. These findings, however, have now been called into question as a result of a new subgroup analysis from the XELOXA study. The expert group therefore recommended that the decision whether to treat patients older than 70 years with an ( oral) fluoropyrimidine alone or in combination with oxaliplatin should be based on clinical parameters such as biological age and comorbidities

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/m(2) 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

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Testing prior to Treatment with 5-Fluorouracil, Capecitabine, and Tegafur: A Consensus Paper

Background: 5-Fluorouracil (FU) is one of the most commonly used cytostatic drugs in the systemic treatment of cancer. Treatment with FU may cause severe or life-threatening side effects and the treatment-related mortality rate is 0.2–1.0%. Summary: Among other risk factors associated with increased toxicity, a genetic deficiency in dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), an enzyme responsible for the metabolism of FU, is well known. This is due to variants in the DPD gene (DPYD). Up to 9% of European patients carry a DPD gene variant that decreases enzyme activity, and DPD is completely lacking in approximately 0.5% of patients. Here we describe the clinical and genetic background and summarize recommendations for the genetic testing and tailoring of treatment with 5-FU derivatives. The statement was developed as a consensus statement organized by the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology in cooperation with 13 medical associations from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Key Messages: (i) Patients should be tested for the 4 most common genetic DPYD variants before treatment with drugs containing FU. (ii) Testing forms the basis for a differentiated, risk-adapted algorithm with recommendations for treatment with FU-containing drugs. (iii) Testing may optionally be supplemented by therapeutic drug monitorin

Immunoscreening of the extracellular proteome of colorectal cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The release of proteins from tumors can trigger an immune response in cancer patients involving T lymphocytes and B lymphocytes, which results in the generation of antibodies to tumor-derived proteins. Many studies aim to use humoral immune responses, namely autoantibody profiles, directly, as clinical biomarkers. Alternatively, the antibody immune response as an amplification system for tumor associated alterations may be used to indicate putative protein biomarkers with high sensitivity. Aiming at the latter approach we here have implemented an autoantibody profiling strategy which particularly focuses on proteins released by tumor cells in vitro: the so-called secretome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For immunoscreening, the extracellular proteome of five colorectal cancer cell lines was resolved on 2D gels, immobilized on PVDF membranes and used for serological screening with individual sera from 21 colorectal cancer patients and 24 healthy controls. All of the signals from each blot were assigned to a master map, and autoantigen candidates were defined based of the pattern of immunoreactivities. The corresponding proteins were isolated from preparative gels, identified by MALDI-MS and/or by nano-HPLC/ESI-MS/MS and exemplarily confirmed by duplex Western blotting combining the human serum samples with antibodies directed against the protein(s) of interest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 281 secretome proteins stained with autoantibodies in total we first defined the "background patterns" of frequently immunoreactive extracellular proteins in healthy and diseased people. An assignment of these proteins, among them many nominally intracellular proteins, to the subset of exosomal proteins within the secretomes revealed a large overlap. On this basis we defined and consequently confirmed novel biomarker candidates such as the extreme C-terminus of the extracellular matrix protein agrin within the set of cancer-enriched immunorectivities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest, first, that autoantibody responses may be due, in large part, to cross-presentation of antigens to the immune system via exosomes, membrane vesicles released by tumor cells and constituting a significant fraction of the secretome. In addition, this immunosecretomics approach has revealed novel biomarker candidates, some of them secretome-specific, and thus serves as a promising complementary tool to the frequently reported immunoproteomic studies for biomarker discovery.</p