Selection with a molecUlar PanEl foR Panitumumab EfficAcy in K-RAS and N-RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer (SUPER-PEAK)

BACKGROUND: Clinical reports with the use of monoclonal antibodies directed against the ligand-binding site of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have shown practice-changing results in the treatment of colorectal cancer. However if on the one hand we are now able to exclude from anti-EGFR treatment more patients with putative refractory colorectal tumours (i.e. those harboring a RAS mutant status), on the other hand we are still incapable to accurately select responding patients among those without RAS mutations. Most of the biological factors analysed in the attempt to improve patients selection in this setting focused either on the EGFR-downstream signaling pathway or on the receptor itself. The presence of mutated BRAF is one of the most powerful prognostic factors for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer and BRAF mutational status determination is incorporated in clinical practice. Moreover published research data suggested that EGFR gene copy number, PIK3CA mutations, PTEN mutations or copy number variations, may all represent predictive determinants for anti-EGFR therapy, however these factors were not incorporated into clinical practice particularly becouse prospective validation is lacking. Biologically enriched, prospective clinical trials are clearly needed in order to further identify the proportion of patients more likely to benefit from the use of first-line anti-EGFR antibodies. METHODS: The SUPER PEAK trial (Selection with a molecular PanEl foR Panitumumab Efficacy in K-ras and n-ras wild type metastatic colorectal cancer) is a multicentre, biologically enriched, prospectively stratified study. The study objective is to prospectively define a molecular panel able to identify patients more likely to benefit from the use of first-line panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX in terms of overall response rate. Patients with RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer are tested for BRAF mutational status according to clinical practice. Moreover a supplementary evaluation of EGFR gene copy number and a pre-specified gene panel of markers (using the Ion Torrent technology on DNA samples from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded -FFPE- tissues) is planned. Patients are divided into 2 prognostic groups on the basis of their biological and clinical profile: favourable and unfavourable (respectively high and low probability for improved RR). RESULTS: This report represents an interim analysis since the SUPERPEAK trial is currently ongoing as well as its enrollment. Globally from October 2014 to February 2020 21 patients were enrolled. As for the primary endpoint (i.e. RR), the presence of mutations in the factors PTEN, SMARCB1, VHL, FGFR2, FGFR3, MLH1 and sidedness were associated with a reduced ORR in the univariate analysis in the intention to treat population. Conversely, the mutations of p53, PIK3CA, MET and HER3, were not statistically related to RR. None of the patients showed a HER2 alteration. As for secondary endpoints (OS, PFS), the mutations of SMAD 4, GNAQ and Rb1 have been linked to an improved OS. Given the results observed in the intention to treat population and the imbalanced proportion in terms of primary tumour sidedness, we conducted a not preplanned analysis in a selected subgroup totally homogeneous for LSCRC as previously exposed. The molecular stratification for prediction of response to treatment evaluated in the LSCRC subgroup (i.e. favourable profile vs infavourable profile), with the limits peculiar to a not preplanned analysis, showed interesting results which are worthy of further development in the final analysis. As for safety, the treatment was confirmed to be safely and well tolerated with a predictable toxicity profile. The molecular stratification proposed for LSCRC could have a relevant role in identifying different risk categories among LSCRC. Further analysis of the present study would hopefully clarify the role of these potential biomarkers in the near future

New Horizons in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Prognostic Role of CD44 Expression

Background: The transmembrane glycoprotein CD44, the major hyaluronan (HA) receptor, has been proven to regulate cell growth, survival, differentiation, and migration. It is therefore widely considered to be involved in carcinogenesis. Its role as a new therapeutic target in solid tumors is under evaluation in clinical trials. The prognostic value remains controversial. Here, we aimed to investigate the correlation between CD44 expression and the clinicopathological features and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Methods: Data from 65 mCRC patients of the Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital and University of Cagliari were retrospectively collected from 2008 to 2021. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed at the Pathology Division, University Hospital of Cagliari on 3 μm thick sections obtained from paraffin blocks. The intensity of immunohistochemical staining was subclassified into four groups: score 0 if negative or weak membrane staining in less than 10% of tumor cells; score 1+ if weak membrane staining in at least 10% of tumor cells or moderate membrane staining in less than 10% of tumor cells; score 2+ if moderate membrane staining in at least 10% of tumor cells or intensive membrane staining in less than 10% of tumor cells; score 3+ if intense membrane staining in at least 10% of tumor cells. Based on this score, we distinguished patients into low CD44 expression (score 0, 1+, 2+) and high CD44 expression (score 3+). Statistical analysis was performed with MedCalc (survival distribution: Kaplan-Meier; survival comparison: log-rank test; association between categorical variables: Fisher's exact test). Results: Patients' median age was 66 years (range 49-85). Regarding CD44 expression, score was 0 in 18 patients, 1+ in 15 patients, 2+ in 18 patients, and 3+ in 14 patients. Median overall survival (mOS) was 28.1 months (95%CI: 21.3-101). CD44 overexpression (3+) was correlated with poor prognosis (p = 0.0011; HR = 0.2), with a mOS of 14.5 months (95%CI 11.7 to 35.9) versus 30.7 months (95%CI 27.8 to 101) in lower CD44 expression. Higher CD44 expression was associated with clinically poor prognostic features: age ≥ 70 years (p = 0.0166); inoperable disease (p = 0.0008); stage IV at diagnosis (p = 0.0241); BRAF mutated (p = 0.0111), high-grade tumor (p = 0.0084). Conclusions: CD44 markedly correlated with aggressive tumor behavior and contributed to the earlier progression of disease, thus suggesting its role as a novel prognostic marker and potential therapeutic target for mCRC patients

Profile of lenvatinib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: design, development, potential place in therapy and network meta-analysis of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in all Phase III trials

Purpose: Sorafenib is the only approved drug in first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, the Phase III REFLECT trial proved lenvatinib not inferior to sorafenib, potentially establishing a new standard of care in this setting. The study showed that both have similar overall survivals, yet with longer time to progression for lenvatinib. Currently, the selection of one or other is not based on clinical or biological parameters for this reason we performed a network meta-analysis and we also analyzed the REFLECT trial and its implications in the current and future clinical practice. Materials and methods: We performed the meta-analysis according to the Prisma statement recommendations. HR was the measure of association for time to progression and overall survival. The pooled analysis of HR was performed using a random effect model, fixing a 5% error as index of statistical significance. Results: For HBV-positive patients, there was a clear trend in favor of lenvatinib over sorafenib (HR 0.82 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.60\u20131.15). For HCV-positive no differences between lenvatinib and sorafenib were observed (HR 0.91 95% CrI 0.41\u20132.01). The data showed that lenvatinib could be the best drug for HBV-positive patients in 59% of cases compared to only 1% of patients treated with sorafenib. Conclusion: The identification of clinical or biological markers that could predict response or resistance to treatments is needed to guide treatment decision. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that the etiology is a good candidate and this result should be validated in a specific trial.Purpose: Sorafenib is the only approved drug in first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, the Phase III REFLECT trial proved lenvatinib not inferior to sorafenib, potentially establishing a new standard of care in this setting. The study showed that both have similar overall survivals, yet with longer time to progression for lenvatinib. Currently, the selection of one or other is not based on clinical or biological parameters for this reason we performed a network meta-analysis and we also analyzed the REFLECT trial and its implications in the current and future clinical practice.Materials and methods: We performed the meta-analysis according to the Prisma statement recommendations. HR was the measure of association for time to progression and overall survival. The pooled analysis of HR was performed using a random effect model, fixing a 5% error as index of statistical significance.Results: For HBV-positive patients, there was a clear trend in favor of lenvatinib over sorafenib (HR 0.82 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.60-1.15). For HCV-positive no differences between lenvatinib and sorafenib were observed (HR 0.91 95% CrI 0.41-2.01). The data showed that lenvatinib could be the best drug for HBV-positive patients in 59% of cases compared to only 1% of patients treated with sorafenib.Conclusion: The identification of clinical or biological markers that could predict response or resistance to treatments is needed to guide treatment decision. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that the etiology is a good candidate and this result should be validated in a specific trial

Primary Tumor Resection for Metastatic Colorectal, Gastric and Pancreatic Cancer Patients: In Search of Scientific Evidence to Inform Clinical Practice

The management of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer patients may be challenging. Indeed, primary tumor progression could be associated with severe symptoms, compromising the quality of life and the feasibility of effective systemic therapy, and might result in life-threatening complications. While retrospective series have suggested that surgery on the primary tumor may confer a survival advantage even in asymptomatic patients, randomized trials seem not to definitively support this hypothesis. We discuss the evidence for and against primary tumor resection for patients with metastatic gastrointestinal (colorectal, gastric and pancreatic) cancers treated with systemic therapies and put in context the pros and cons of the onco-surgical approach in the time of precision oncology. We also evaluate current ongoing trials on this topic, anticipating how these will influence both research and everyday practice

CDX-2 expression correlates with clinical outcomes in MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) showed efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with mismatch-repair deficiency or high microsatellite instability (dMMR-MSI-H). Unfortunately, a patient's subgroup did not benefit from immunotherapy. Caudal-related homeobox transcription factor 2 (CDX-2) would seem to influence immunotherapy's sensitivity, promoting the chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 14 (CXCL14) expression. Therefore, we investigated CDX-2 role as a prognostic-predictive marker in patients with mCRC MSI-H. We retrospectively collected data from 14 MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICIs between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was the 12-month progression-free-survival (PFS) rate. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The PFS rate at 12 months was 81% in CDX-2 positive patients vs 0% in CDX-2 negative patients (p = 0.0011). The median PFS was not reached (NR) in the CDX-2 positive group versus 2.07 months (95%CI 2.07-10.8) in CDX-2 negative patients (p = 0.0011). Median OS was NR in CDX-2-positive patients versus 2.17 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.17-18.7) in CDX2-negative patients (p = 0.026). All CDX-2-positive patients achieved a disease response, one of them a complete response. Among CDX-2-negative patients, one achieved stable disease, while the other progressed rapidly (ORR: 100% vs 0%, p = 0.0005; DCR: 100% vs 50%, p = 0.02). Twelve patients received 1st-line pembrolizumab (11 CDX-2 positive and 1 CDX-2 negative) not reaching median PFS, while two patients (1 CDX-2 positive and 1 CDX-2 negative) received 3rd-line pembrolizumab reaching a median PFS of 10.8 months (95% CI, 10.8-12.1; p = 0.036). Although our study reports results on a small population, the prognostic role of CDX-2 in CRC seems confirmed and could drive a promising predictive role in defining the population more sensitive to immunotherapy treatment. Modulating the CDX-2/CXCL14 axis in CDX-2-negative patients could help overcome primary resistance to immunotherapy

Antiangiogenic agents after first line and sorafenib plus chemoembolization: A systematic review

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard treatment for intermediate stage, although the combination of TACE with sorafenib may theoretically benefit HCC patients in intermediate stage. Owing to the significant antiangiogenic effect of sorafenib and the limitation of TACE, it is rational to combine them. Though the strategy of combining TACE and sorafenib has been increasingly used in patients with unresectable HCC but the current evidence is controversial and its clinical role has not been determined yet. In first-line therapy, patients receiving sorafenib had increased overall survival and progression free survival. Therefore several antiangiogenic agents have entered clinical studies on HCC, many with negative results. This review discusses the current drug development for patients with HCC and role of TACE plus sorafenib

Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer: where are we heading?

Introduction: In the last few years, significant advances in molecular biology have provided new therapeutic options for colorectal cancer (CRC). The development of new drugs that target the immune response to cancer cells seems very promising and has already been established for other tumor types. In particular, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors seems to be an encouraging immunotherapeutic strategy. Areas covered: In this review, the authors provide an update of the current evidence related to this topic, though most immunotherapies are still in early-phase clinical trials for CRC. To understand the key role of immunotherapy in CRC, the authors discuss the delicate balance between immune-stimulating and immune-suppressive networks that occur in the tumor microenvironment. Expert opinion: Modulation of the immune system through checkpoint inhibition is an emerging approach in CRC therapy. Nevertheless, selection criteria that could enable the identification of patients who may benefit from these agents are necessary. Furthermore, potential prognostic and predictive immune biomarkers based on immune and molecular classifications have been proposed. As expected, additional studies are required to develop biomarkers, effective therapeutic strategies and novel combinations to overcome immune escape resistance and enhance effector response

First-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in patients with advanced colorectal cancer prospectively stratified according to serum LDH: Final results of the GISCAD (Italian Group for the Study of Digestive Tract Cancers) CENTRAL (ColorEctalavastiNTRiAlLdh) trial

Background:Previous findings suggested that bevacizumab might be able to improve response rate (RR) in colorectal cancer patients with high lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) basal levels.Methods:We conducted a phase II trial to prospectively ascertain whether bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI could have an improved clinical activity in patients with high LDH serum levels. Primary end point of the study was RR; secondary end points were median overall survival and median progression-free survival (mPFS).Results:A total of 81 patients were enrolled. No difference in terms of ORR (39% vs 31% for low vs high LDH level stratum, P=0.78) and mPFS (14.16 vs 10.29 months, HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.51-2.24, P=0.83) between the strata was observed, whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients with low LDH (24.85 vs 15.14 months, HR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.14-14.61, P=0.0004). In a not-pre-planned exploratory analysis using different cut-off ranges for LDH, we observed RR up to 70%, with no improvement in progression-free survival or OS.Conclusions:The CENTRAL trial failed to demonstrate that high LDH levels were related to a significantly improved RR in patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. The LDH serum levels should then no further be investigated as a predictive factor in this setting

Regorafenib-induced hypothyroidism and cancer-related fatigue: is there a potential link?

Objective: Thyroid dysfunction has been reported during Regorafenib (Reg) administration, but no detailed study is presently available. Design: Prospective, observational cohort study. Patients with documented metastatic colorectal cancer and progression of disease during or within 3 months after the last standard therapy, with no evidence and history of previous thyroid disease were enrolled. Methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients were evaluated before and 8–50 weeks after initiating Reg therapy by monthly clinical, ultrasound and laboratory (thyrotropin (TSH), free thyroxine (fT4), antithyroglobulin (TgAb) and antithyroid peroxidase (TPOAb)) evaluation. Results: Thirteen/25 patients (52%) became hypothyroid (TSH: 12.5 ± 4.01 IU/L, range: 4.6–22.0) within 5 months of therapy. TPOAb became detectable (99–155 IU/mL) in 2/25 (8%) patients. Thyroid volume progressively decreased (from 8.6 ± 2.2 mL to 4.9 ± 2.4 mL after 5 months of Reg therapy, P < 0.0001). The progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in patients developing hypothyroidism (43 weeks) than in those remaining euthyroid (17 weeks, P < 0.01). Fatigue (the most common general serious Reg adverse event) was associated with hypothyroidism severity and reversed after levothyroxine therapy (L-T4). Conclusions: Reg rapidly causes hypothyroidism in about 50% of patients and in a minority of them also triggers thyroid autoimmunity. Reg-induced hypothyroidism was strictly related to fatigue, easily reversed by L-T4 administration and associated to longer survival. These results suggest that prompt recognition of hypothyroidism in patients with severe fatigue may prevent unnecessary Reg dose reduction or withdrawal

How to improve metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients' selection: Between clinical trials and the real-world

As underlined in the minireview by Blomstrand et al, given the poor prognosis and the paucity of data on a therapeutic sequence in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), additional randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence studies addressing current and novel regimens are needed. The real-world outcomes of first-line chemotherapy regimens such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel are thoroughly reviewed and seem to be largely generalizable in a real-world context. Regarding second-line chemotherapy, the key question about the optimal sequence of regimens remains uncertain. Precisely in this setting, it is therefore useful to encourage the implementation of clinical studies that may contribute to the scarcity of data available up to now. We report our experience with a small group of patients treated with second-line liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. To improve the treatment of patients affected by PDAC, it is useful to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from target treatments (e.g., BRCA mutant) and it is also important to focus on any prognostic factors that may affect the survival and treatment of these patients