Incorporating BEAMing technology as a liquid biopsy into clinical practice for the management of colorectal cancer patients: an expert taskforce review.

The importance of mutation identification for advanced colorectal cancer treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents is well established. However, due to delays in turnaround time, low-quality tissue samples, and/or lack of standardization of testing methods a significant proportion of patients are being treated without the information that Kirsten rat sarcoma and neuroblastoma rat sarcoma (RAS) testing can provide. The detection of mutated circulating tumor DNA by BEAMing technology addresses this gap in care and allows these patients to receive international guideline-recommended expanded RAS testing with rapid turnaround times. Furthermore, the overall concordance between OncoBEAM RAS colorectal cancer testing and standard of care tissue testing is very high (93.3%). This article presents an overview of the clinical utility and potential applications of this minimally invasive method, such as early detection of emergent resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. If appropriately implemented, BEAMing technology holds considerable promise to enhance the quality of patient care and improve clinical outcomes.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Role of circulating tumor cells as prognostic marker in resected stage III colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic role of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in early colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been determined yet. We evaluated the potential prognostic value of CTC in stage III CRC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective multicenter study of 519 patients with stage III CRC recruited between January 2009 and June 2010. CTC were enumerated with the CellSearch System after primary tumor resection and before the start of adjuvant therapy. A total of 472 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: CTC ≥1, ≥2, ≥3 and ≥5 were detected in 166 (35%), 93 (20%), 57 (12%) and 34 (7%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 40 months. In the overall population, CTC ≥1 (disease-free survival (DFS): HR 0.97, P = 0.85; overall survival (OS): HR 1.03, P = 0.89), ≥2 (DFS: HR 1.07, P = 0.76; OS: HR 1.02, P = 0.95), ≥3 (DFS: HR 0.96, P = 0.87; OS: HR 0.74, P = 0.41) and ≥5 (DFS: HR 0.72, P = 0.39; OS: HR 0.48, P = 0.21) were not associated with worse DFS and OS. No clinicopathological characteristics were significantly associated with the presence of CTC. In patients with disease relapse, the proportion with CTC ≥1 was not significantly different between those with single versus multiple metastatic locations (37.9% versus 31.4%, P = 0.761). In the multivariate analysis, CTC ≥1 was not an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR 0.97, P = 0.87) and OS (HR 0.96, P = 0.89). CONCLUSION: CTC detection was not associated with worse DFS and OS in patients with stage III CRC. Given the scarcity of CTC in these patients, it is likely that CTC determined by CellSearch system does not have a prognostic role in this setting. However, a longer follow-up is needed.

BRCA2 gene: a candidate for clinical testing in familial colorectal cancer type X.

Familial colorectal cancer type X (FCCX) encompasses a group of families with dominant inheritance pattern of colorectal cancer (CRC) but no alteration in any known CRC susceptibility gene. Therefore, the explanation of their susceptibility is a priority to offer an accurate genetic counseling. We screened the 27 coding exons and exon-intron boundaries of BRCA2 in 48 FCCX probands. We identified 29 variants including a frameshift mutation. Deleterious variant c.3847_3848delGT p.(Val1283Lysfs*2) showed cosegregation with disease as well as loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in CRC tumor DNA. This is the first evidence of germline BRCA2 pathogenic mutation associated with CRC risk. Furthermore, missense variants c.502C>A p.(Pro168Thr), c.5744C>T p.(Thr1915Met) and c.7759C>T p.(Leu2587Phe) were proposed as candidate risk alleles based on cosegregation, LOH tumor analysis and in silico testing.

Combined methylation of p16 and hMLH1 (CMETH2) discriminates a subpopulation with better prognosis in colorectal cancer patients with microsatellite instability tumors.

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of p16 and hMLH1 genes simultaneous methylation in colorectal cancer patients with Microsatellite Instability (MSI) tumors. We also wanted to analyze the relationship with other clinical features, with BRAF gene V600E mutation and with prognosis. Samples from fifty one patients with MSI positive sporadic colorectal cancer were included. DNA was extracted from tumor samples. Promoter methylation was analyzed using bisulfite modification and was detected by quantitative methylation-specific PCR. BRAF gene was amplified using specific primers and mutations were detected by real time PCR. Simultaneous methylation was transformed in a new variable called CMETH2. Frequency of CMETH2 was analyzed and compared with other clinicopathological variables. 33.3 % of patients were positive for CMETH2 and 25 % had BRAF V600E mutation. CMETH2 was related with proximal location, with poorly differentiated tumors and with BRAF V600E mutation. CMETH2 only showed influence in the overall survival (OS) in patients with distal tumors. However, with regard to the disease free survival (DFS) measure, CMETH2 was independent prognostic factor. We were able to discriminate tumors with high methylation features using a transformation analysis of variables into a new computed one (CMETH2). CMETH2 has demonstrated to be a useful prognostic factor in MSI tumors. The prognostic value of CMETH2 in DFS was independent of other clinicopathological variables. The use of CMETH2 could help in the election of the best therapeutic alternative for CCR patients with MSI tumors.

New challenges in kidney cancer management: integration of surgery and novel therapies.

Despite early renal carcinoma diagnosis is more frequent nowadays, ~25-30 % of patients have metastatic disease at presentation and another ~30 % develop recurrent or metastatic disease after radical treatment for localized disease. In recent years, treatment of renal carcinoma is increasing in complexity due to the inclusion of a number of effective systemic treatments prolonging survival and increasing the therapeutic strategies for tumor debulking, or even achieving surgical complete responses and prolonged disease-free intervals. Initial multimodal approaches with immunotherapeutic agents are now being validated in patients treated with the new-targeted agents. Patients are now able to receive an optimal therapeutic strategy seeking a longer survival with an acceptable life quality and avoiding unnecessary comorbidities. In this context and as an initial therapeutic approach, it is imperative to promote patients' selection with established prognostic models within a multidisciplinary team to assess the recommendation of a cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN), metastasectomy, and/or systemic treatment. In the context of mRCC, when feasible and in patients with favorable prognostic factors, the strategy should be to consider a CN or metastasectomy for tumor debulking in order to achieve free intervals of prolonged disease. By contrast, it is recommended to evaluate whether to perform a biopsy for histological diagnosis without nephrectomy in the following situations: high surgical risk, bulky metastatic disease or in specific sites (brain or liver) or ECOG PS 3/4. The following review covers from initial to recent studies on the integration of systemic treatment and surgery in the context of metastatic disease for an optimal multimodal management in renal carcinoma.

Correlation between response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy that accurately predicts long-term survival in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is an essential requirement for clinical trials development. Several methods to assess tumor response have been described. However, the agreement between methods and correlation with survival in independent cohorts has not been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report survival and tumor response according to the measurement of residual breast cancer burden (RCB), the Miller and Payne classification and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, in 151 LABC patients. Kappa Cohen's coefficient (К) was used to test the agreement between methods. We assessed the correlation between the treatment outcome and overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) by calculating Harrell's C-statistic (c). RESULTS: The agreement between Miller and Payne classification and RCB classes was very high (К = 0.82). In contrast, we found a moderate-to-fair agreement between the Miller and Payne classification and RECIST criteria (К = 0.52) and RCB classes and RECIST criteria (К = 0.38). The adjusted C-statistic to predict OS for RCB index (0.77) and RCB classes (0.75) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.69) (P = 0.007 and P = 0.035, respectively). Also, RCB index (c = 0.71), RCB classes (c = 0.71) and Miller and Payne classification (c = 0.67) predicted better RFS than RECIST criteria (c = 0.61) (P = 0.005, P = 0.006 and P = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The pathological assessment of tumor response might provide stronger prognostic information in LABC patients.

Erlotinib versus pemetrexed for pretreated non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Erlotinib and chemotherapy have shown similar efficacy for pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but none of the large studies have selected patients based on histology. We present a retrospective single-center series of advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or pemetrexed as second-line therapy. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety data under clinical practice conditions and to identify subgroups of patients who could benefit more from these therapies. METHODS: A total of 88 patients were included. Squamous histology was our main exclusion criterion. EGFR mutation status was known for 54.5% of the patients; 6 patients treated with erlotinib and 2 with pemetrexed had EGFR-mutated tumors. Smoking history was analyzed as possible predictive factor of efficacy. RESULTS: No significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS; 3 vs. 2.5 months, p = 0.06) or overall survival (OS; 4.9 vs. 7.4 months, p = 0.733) between the erlotinib and pemetrexed groups were found in the overall population. EGFR wild-type patients had a similar median PFS with erlotinib compared to pemetrexed (2.7 vs. 2.3 months, p = 0.42), with no statistical differences in OS. Statistically significant differences in OS in favor of pemetrexed for current smokers (3 vs. 7.1 months, p = 0.017) were found, while erlotinib achieved significantly better PFS in never-smokers compared to former smokers (3.5 vs. 2.7 months, p = 0.005). Serious adverse events were uncommon but more frequent with pemetrexed, and were mainly related to hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib should be considered as another equal option in second-line treatment for EGFR wild-type patients as well as for subpopulations with unknown mutational status. Smoking history could be a useful clinical marker to choose a second-line treatment.

Association of Circulating Tumor Cells and Tumor Molecular Profile With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of the Phase III VISNÚ-1 and Phase II VISNÚ-2 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The bCTC count is a well-established prognostic biomarker in mCRC, as well as in other tumor types. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic/predictive role of the bCTC count (≥3 vs. <3) in previously untreated mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 589 untreated mCRC patients included in the intention-to-treat population of 2 randomized clinical trials (phase III VISNU-1 [NCT01640405] and phase II VISNU-2 [NCT01640444] studies). RESULTS: Of the 589 patients, 349 (59.2%) had bCTC≥3 and 240 (40.7%) had bCTC<3. Multivariate analysis showed that the bCTC count is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72; P = 0.000) and potential for progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.0549). Median OS was 32.9 and 19.5 months in patients with bCTC<3 and bCTC≥3 (P <0.001), respectively. This effect was also observed comparing OS in RASwt patients from both studies. Other prognostic factors were: ECOG-PS, primary tumor site, number of metastatic sites and surgery of the primary tumor. Median OS was lower for patients treated with anti-VEGF versus anti-EGFR (22.3 vs. 33.3 months, P <0.0001) while there were no significant differences in PFS according to the targeted treatment received. CONCLUSION: This post-hoc analysis of 2 randomized studies confirms the poor prognosis of patients with bCTC≥3 but this is not associated with other adverse independent prognostic factors such as RAS/BRAF mutations.

Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: final results from the X-ACT trial with analysis by age and preliminary evidence of a pharmacodynamic marker of efficacy.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter randomized trial compared oral capecitabine with bolus i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to 24 weeks of capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks or 5-FU/FA (Mayo Clinic regimen). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population received capecitabine (n = 1004) or 5-FU/FA (n = 983). With a median follow-up of 6.9 years, capecitabine was at least equivalent to 5-FU/FA in terms of DFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.01] and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.01); the 95% CI upper limits were significantly less than the predefined noninferiority margins of 1.20 (P < 0.0001) and 1.14 (P < 0.001), respectively. This pattern was maintained in all subgroups, including patients aged ≥ 70 years. Preplanned multivariate analyses showed that capecitabine had statistically significant beneficial effects on DFS (P = 0.021) and OS (P = 0.020) versus 5-FU/FA. A post hoc analysis suggested that the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome may be associated with better outcomes in capecitabine recipients. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to bolus 5-FU/FA as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage III colon cancer with efficacy benefits maintained at 5 years and in older patients.

Glutathione S-transferase P1 c.313A > G polymorphism could be useful in the prediction of doxorubicin response in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Identification of predicting factors for anthracyclines-based chemotherapy remains a clinical challenge. Glutathione S-transferase (GSTs) enzymes detoxify chemotherapy drugs and their metabolites. Several polymorphisms in GST genes result in reduced or no activity of the enzymes. Specifically, GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes are polymorphically deleted, the polymorphism GSTP1 c.313A>G (rs1695) determines the amino acid substitution Ile105Val, where the Val-containing enzyme has reduced activity. Also, GSTA1*B allele has reduced levels of GSTA1 enzyme. Several polymorphisms in GSTs have been associated with differences in survival for cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We genotyped a total of five polymorphisms in GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1 and GSTA1 genes in 159 patients with locally advanced breast cancer, treated with single-agent doxorubicin or docetaxel (Taxotere). Gene expression microarrays were performed in 67 breast tumor samples. We correlate this data with treatment outcome. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, patients homozygous GG for GSTP1 c.313A>G SNP had a lower risk of chemoresistance when treated with doxorubicin (odds ratio 0.106; confidence interval 0.012-0.898; P=0.040). No association was found in the docetaxel arm. Also, we found that GSTP1 expression varied significantly among breast cancer molecular subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: GSTP1 may constitute another tool contributing to individualized anthracycline-based therapy.

Phase II open-label study of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine in unresectable and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: relationship between skin rash and survival (Pantar study).

BACKGROUND: Skin rash is an adverse event which might be associated with longer survival in patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The aim of this nonrandomised phase II clinical trial is to prospectively evaluate the relationship between skin rash and overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with erlotinib plus gemcitabine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were given gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2/week, 3 weeks every 4 weeks) plus erlotinib (100 mg/day orally continuously) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was OS. RESULTS: A total of 153 eligible patients were enrolled (grade≥2 rash, 25%; grade<2 rash, 75%). OS was longer in patients with grade≥2 rash versus grade<2 (11 versus 5 months; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was longer in patients with grade≥2 rash versus grade<2 (6 versus 3 months; P<0.001) and shorter in those without rash versus grade 1 (2 versus 4 months; P=0.005) or grade≥2 (2 versus 6 months; P<0.001). Patients with grade≥2 rash showed higher rates of overall response (21% versus 7%; P<0.05) and disease control (84% versus 43%; P<0.05) versus grade<2. CONCLUSIONS: This study prospectively confirms the relationship between rash and longer OS in unresectable locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with erlotinib plus gemcitabine.

XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results.

BACKGROUND: We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85-1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83-1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The diagnosis and management of gastric cancer: expert discussion and recommendations from the 12th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2010.

Well-recognized experts in the field of gastric cancer discussed during the 12th European Society Medical Oncology (ESMO)/World Congress Gastrointestinal Cancer (WCGIC) in Barcelona many important and controversial topics on the diagnosis and management of patients with gastric cancer. This article summarizes the recommendations and expert opinion on gastric cancer. It discusses and reflects on the regional differences in the incidence and care of gastric cancer, the definition of gastro-esophageal junction and its implication for treatment strategies and presents the latest recommendations in the staging and treatment of primary and metastatic gastric cancer. Recognition is given to the need for larger and well-designed clinical trials to answer many open questions.

Genomic predictors of response to doxorubicin versus docetaxel in primary breast cancer.

UNLABELLED: Taxanes and anthracyclines improve the outcome of early breast cancer, although the benefit is limited to a small proportion of patients and are toxic. We prospectively looked for predictors of response to these drugs. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Four cycles of doxorubicin (75 mg/m²) or docetaxel (100 mg/m²) were compared as presurgical chemotherapy for breast cancer. Biomarkers were determined by immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization using prechemotherapy core biopsies. Tumors were also classified into one of the molecular intrinsic subtypes using an immunohistochemical panel of five biomarkers and genomic profiles. Single genes and intrinsic subtypes were correlated with response to doxorubicin versus docetaxel. Among the 204 evaluable patients, significant predictors of sensitivity in multivariate analysis were low topo2a expression and ER-negative status for doxorubicin and small tumor size and ER-negative status for docetaxel. Predictors of resistance in multivariate analysis were triple-negative status (ER/PgR/HER2 negative by IHC/FISH) for doxorubicin, and high TNM stage for docetaxel. Triple-negative tumors were associated with topo2a overexpression more than the other subtypes. In 94 patients with gene expression profiles, docetaxel was superior to doxorubicin in the basal-like subtype (good pathological response rate - PCR + class I of 56 vs. 0%; P = 0.034); no significant differences were observed in the other subtypes when comparing these two drugs. Low topo2a expression and ER-negative status were predictors of response to doxorubicin, while small tumor size and ER-negative status predicted response to docetaxel. Docetaxel was superior to doxorubicin in triple-negative/basal-like tumors, while no significant differences were seen in the remaining intrinsic subtypes.

Irinotecan-cetuximab-bevacizumab as a salvage treatment in heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of irinotecan-cetuximab-bevacizumab in combination as a salvage treatment for heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 39 patients resistant to both oxaliplatin and irinotecan were included in this retrospective study. Treatment consisted of irinotecan 180/m(2) every 14 days, weekly cetuximab standard dose and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 14 days. RESULTS: Partial response was observed in 8 patients (20%), stable disease in 24 (61%) and progressive disease in 7 (18%). Overall response rate in KRAS wild type was 6/22 (27%) and in mutated KRAS it was 2/15 (13%). Median time to progression was 8 months (6.4-9.4) and median overall survival 12 months (10.1-13.8). Overall, grade 3-4 adverse events were observed in 24 patients (62%). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen is active and moderately well tolerated in heavily pretreated advanced colorectal patients. However, caution is advisable when interpreting these results, because they run against the findings of two large phase III trials.

Influence of BRAF and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or cetuximab as first-line therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma and <3 baseline circulating tumour cells: the randomised phase II VISNÚ-2 study.

BACKGROUND: We explored the influence of BRAF and PIK3CA mutational status on the efficacy of bevacizumab or cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: VISNÚ-2 was a multicentre, randomised, phase II study. Patients with RAS wild-type mCRC and <3 circulating tumour cells/7.5 ml blood were stratified by BRAF/PIK3CA status (wild-type versus mutated) and number of affected organs (1 versus >1), and allocated to bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 then 250 mg/m2 weekly) plus FOLFIRI [irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 (bolus) then 2400 mg/m2 (46-h continuous infusion) every 2 weeks]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). All analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty patients with BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type (n = 196) or BRAF- and/or PIK3CA-mutated tumours (n = 44) were enrolled. Median PFS was 12.7 and 8.8 months in patients with BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type and BRAF/PIK3CA-mutated tumours, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.85; P = 0.3602]. In the BRAF- and/or PIK3CA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 2.8, 8.8 and 15.0 months in patients with BRAF/PI3KCA-mutated (n = 8), BRAF-mutated/PI3KCA wild-type (n = 16) and BRAF wild-type/PI3KCA-mutated (n = 20) tumours, respectively (P = 0.0002). PFS was similar with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI versus cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.67-1.45; P = 0.9486) and BRAF/PIK3CA-mutated tumours (HR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.53-2.35; P = 0.7820). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, diarrhoea and asthenia in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF/PIK3CA status influences outcomes in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC but does not appear to assist with the selection of first-line targeted therapy.

Molecular markers and biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 11th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2009.

The article summarizes the expert discussion and recommendations on the use of molecular markers and of biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as well as a proposed treatment decision strategy for mCRC treatment. The meeting was conducted during the 11th ESMO/World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona in June 2009. The manuscript describes the outcome of an expert discussion leading to an expert recommendation. The increasing knowledge on clinical and molecular markers and the availability of biological targeted therapies have major implications in the optimal management in mCRC.

Celecoxib in a 12-year-old boy with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by colonic polyps in early adult life. Children with this disease are at risk for colonic cancer, so prophylactic colectomy is the standard treatment to prevent this complication. Chemoprevention experience with NSAIDs in children is exceptional. This case report describes our experience with Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, in a 12-year-old boy.