The challenge of molecular selection in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer for surgical resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis in the context of current and future approaches.

Objectives: Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) includes resection of liver metastases (LM), however, no validated biomarker identifies patients most likely to benefit from this procedure. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of the most relevant molecular alterations in cancer-related genes of CRC (i.e., RAS, BRAF, SMAD4, PIK3CA) as prognostic markers of survival and disease recurrence in patients with mCRC surgically treated by LM resection. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies reporting data regarding survival and/or recurrence in patients that underwent complete liver resection for CRC LM, stratified according to RAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and SMAD4 mutational status. Hazard ratios (HRs) from multivariate analyses were pooled in the meta-analysis and various adjustment strategies for confounding factors were combined. The search was conducted in numerous databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO host), and WHO Global Index Medicus, through March 18th, 2022. Meta-analyses, editorials, letters to the editor, case reports, studies on other primary cancers, studies with primary metastatic sites other than the liver, studies lacking specific oncological outcome variables or genetic data, non-English language studies, and studies omitting residual disease data from liver metastasectomy were excluded. The remaining 47 studies were summarized in a descriptive table which outlines the key characteristics of each study and final results were graphically presented. Results: RAS mutation status was negatively associated with overall survival (OS) (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.54-1.84) and recurrence free survival (RFS) (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.33-1.61). A negative association was also found for BRAF regarding OS (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.15-3.24) and RFS (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.73) and SMAD4 regarding OS (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.56-2.38) and RFS (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.31-2.91). For PIK3CA only three studies were eligible and no significant association with either OS or RFS could be highlighted. Conclusion: RAS, BRAF, and SMAD4 are negatively associated with OS and RFS in patients undergoing curative liver metastasectomy from colorectal cancer. No conclusion can be drawn for PIK3CA due to the limited literature availability. These data support the integration of RAS, BRAF, and SMAD4 mutational status in the surgical decision-making for colorectal liver metastasis. Nevertheless, we have to consider several limitations, the major ones being the pooling of results from studies that evaluated patient outcomes as either disease-free survival (DFS) or RFS; the inclusion of patients with minimal residual disease and unconsidered potential confounding factors, such as variability in resectability definitions, chemotherapy use, and a potential interaction between biological markers and pre- and post-resection pharmacological treatments.

Use of the ONCO-TreC electronic diary compared with a standard paper diary to improve adherence to oral cancer therapy in patients with solid and haematological tumours: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: ONCO-TreC platform consists of a mobile application delivered to patients as electronic diary and a web-based dashboard managed by healthcare professionals. We aim to compare the effectiveness of ONCO-TreC electronic diary with a standard paper diary, in improving adherence to oral cancer therapy in patients with solid and haematological tumours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open label, superiority, randomised controlled trial conducted in two Italian oncology units. Patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio to electronic or paper diary. For both groups a counsellor will be responsible for drug and diary delivery. The evaluation period will end after six cycles of therapy. The primary aim is to compare the proportion of non-adherent patients in the two arms. Adherence will be measured through pill count; anyone who takes less than 90% of the total prescribed drug dose will be considered non-adherent. Assuming a percentage of non-adherent patients to oral therapy of 40% in arm B, and a 60% reduction in this percentage in arm A, a sample of 124 patients will provide 80% power to identify an absolute difference greater than 24 percentage points using a bilateral Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. Considering a dropout rate of 10%, approximately 136 patients will have to be enrolled. The primary analysis will be performed on the intention-to-treat population. Secondary aims are to describe the reasons for non-adherence, the level of satisfaction of patients and healthcare professionals with the paper and electronic diary, and the impact of non-adherence in terms of healthcare costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from Romagna Ethics Committee (CEROM), study ID 2108, prot. n. IRST 100.28 of 10/04/2020. Informed consent will be obtained from all study participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and event presentations. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2, 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04826458.