Upfront resection versus no resection of the primary tumor in patients with synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer: the randomized phase 3 CAIRO4 study conducted by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group and the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Upfront primary tumor resection (PTR) has been associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients with synchronous unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in retrospective analyses. The aim of the CAIRO4 study was to investigate whether the addition of upfront PTR to systemic therapy resulted in a survival benefit in patients with synchronous mCRC without severe symptoms of their primary tumor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized phase 3 trial was conducted in 45 hospitals in The Netherlands and Denmark. Eligibility criteria included previously untreated mCRC, unresectable metastases, and no severe symptoms of the primary tumor. Patients were randomized (1:1) to upfront PTR followed by systemic therapy or systemic therapy without upfront PTR. Systemic therapy consisted of first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab in both arms. Primary endpoint was OS in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01606098. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and February 2021, 206 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 204 patients were included (n= 103 without upfront PTR, n=101 with upfront PTR) of whom 116 were men (57%) with median age of 65 years (IQR 59-71). Median follow-up was 69.4 months. Median OS in the arm without upfront PTR was 18.3 months (95% CI 16.0-22.2) compared to 20.1 months (95% CI 17.0-25.1) in the upfront PTR arm (p = 0.32). The number of grade 3-4 events was 71 (72%) in the arm without upfront PTR and 61 (65%) in the upfront PTR arm (p=0.33). Three deaths (3%) possibly related to treatment were reported in the arm without upfront PTR and four (4%) in the upfront PTR arm. CONCLUSION: of upfront PTR to palliative systemic therapy in patients with synchronous mCRC without severe symptoms of the primary tumor does not result in a survival benefit. This practice should no longer be considered standard of care.

Satisfaction of Paediatric Oncology Patients, Survivors, and Nurses with the Position of Their Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (SPACE-Study).

BACKGROUND: To compare paediatric oncologic vascular access ports located on the anterior thoracic wall to ports on the lower lateral thoracic wall, in terms of perceived port-related hindrance and scar-quality. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study including paediatric oncology patients (≥8-<19 yrs), caregivers (in patients <8 yrs), survivors (>22 yrs with only anterior ports) and nurses of the Princess Máxima Center, the Netherlands, was performed. The survey consisted of questions regarding satisfaction, hindrance during daily life, and port position preference. For survivors, scar-quality was assessed using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0); a high score (i.e., a displeasing scar) was defined as a score higher than the third quartile of the median for that question. RESULTS: In total, 147 participants were included; 83 patients/caregivers, 31 survivors, and 33 nurses. Overall, 81 % was satisfied with the position of their port. Satisfaction, hindrance and complications did not differ between anterior and lower lateral ports. For the anterior position, minimal pressure on the port during daily life was a mentioned reason to prefer this position. For the lower lateral position, less visibility of the scar and easiest access were mentioned. Of all survivors with an anterior port scar, one in five had a displeasing scar and all scars observed were widened. Female patients preferred a lower lateral port, and scar-quality was better for left-sided port scars. CONCLUSION: The port position should be chosen together with patients/caregivers based on the (dis-)advantages of each position, as identified by this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Artificial intelligence for predictive biomarker discovery in immuno-oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionised treatment of multiple cancer types. However, selecting patients who may benefit from ICI remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches allow exploitation of high-dimension oncological data in research and development of precision immuno-oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed original articles studying the ICI efficacy prediction in cancer patients across five data modalities: genomics (including genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics), radiomics, digital pathology (pathomics), and real-world and multimodality data. RESULTS: A total of 90 studies were included in this systematic review, with 80% published in 2021-2022. Among them, 37 studies included genomic, 20 radiomic, 8 pathomic, 20 real-world, and 5 multimodal data. Standard machine learning (ML) methods were used in 72% of studies, deep learning (DL) methods in 22%, and both in 6%. The most frequently studied cancer type was non-small-cell lung cancer (36%), followed by melanoma (16%), while 25% included pan-cancer studies. No prospective study design incorporated AI-based methodologies from the outset; rather, all implemented AI as a post hoc analysis. Novel biomarkers for ICI in radiomics and pathomics were identified using AI approaches, and molecular biomarkers have expanded past genomics into transcriptomics and epigenomics. Finally, complex algorithms and new types of AI-based markers, such as meta-biomarkers, are emerging by integrating multimodal/multi-omics data. CONCLUSION: AI-based methods have expanded the horizon for biomarker discovery, demonstrating the power of integrating multimodal data from existing datasets to discover new meta-biomarkers. While most of the included studies showed promise for AI-based prediction of benefit from immunotherapy, none provided high-level evidence for immediate practice change. A priori planned prospective trial designs are needed to cover all lifecycle steps of these software biomarkers, from development and validation to integration into clinical practice.

Daily practice in guideline adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer and predictors of outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Although guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients, many patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to identify reasons for guideline non-adherence and assess the effect on patient outcomes in a multicenter cohort of stage III colon cancer patients who received surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy or surgery alone. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery between 2007 and 2017 were included. Reasons for non-adherence were determined. Propensity score analyses with inverse probability weighting were performed to adjust for confounding factors. Cox proportional hazards regression and risk stratified analyses were performed to assess the association of guideline adherence and other potential predictors with recurrence free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Data of 575 patients were included of whom 61% received adjuvant chemotherapy. In 87 of 222 patients (39%) who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, no reason was documented. Only age was predictive for receiving chemotherapy. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had longer RFS (HR 0.42, 95%CI 0.29-0.62, p < 0.001). High T- and N-stage were associated with poorer RFS HR 2.0 (95%CI 1.58-2.71, p < 0.001) and HR 2.19 (95%CI 1.60-2.99, p < 0.001) respectively. Risk groups were identified with distinct prognosis and treatment effect and a nomogram is presented to visualize individualized RFS differences. CONCLUSION: This study shows considerable variation in guideline adherence to adjuvant chemotherapy and poor documentation on reasons for non-adherence. Optimizing adherence and gaining insight in reasons for non-adherence is advocated as this can lead to significant RFS benefit, especially in patients with high T-and N-stage tumors.

[Identification of differentiated dysplasia improves prediction of oral leukoplakia at increased risk of malignant progression]. / Onderkenning van gedifferentieerde dysplasie voor het voorspellen van de kans op maligne ontaarding van orale leukoplakie.

Oral leukoplakia is the most common potentially malignant disorder of the oral mucosa with a rate of malignant transformation into oral squamous cell carcinoma of 1-2% annually. The presence or absence of dysplasia as defined by the WHO is an important histological marker for malignant transformation risk assessment, but is not sufficiently accurate for patient stratification. We investigated whether identifying differentiated dysplasia contributes to oral leukoplakia malignant transformation risk assessment. We investigated whether classic or differentiated dysplasia were present in 84 oral leukoplakias. In 25 of these patients a squamous cell carcinoma developed during follow-up. Risk of malignant progression of oral leukoplakia increased from 3.3 (HR, p = 0.002) when only classic dysplasia was considered to 7.4 (HR, p = 0.001) when both classic and differentiated dysplasia were combined. This study demonstrates that identifying differentiated dysplasia as a separate type of dysplasia is important for the prognosis and stratification of patients with oral leukoplakia.

Improving clinical management of colon cancer through CONNECTION, a nation-wide colon cancer registry and stratification effort (CONNECTION II trial): rationale and protocol of a single arm intervention study.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 15-30% of patients with early stage colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We are currently not capable of upfront selection of patients who benefit from chemotherapy, which indicates the need for additional predictive markers for response to chemotherapy. It has been shown that the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs), defined by RNA-profiling, have prognostic and/or predictive value. Due to postoperative timing of chemotherapy in current guidelines, tumor response to chemotherapy per CMS is not known, which makes the differentiation between the prognostic and predictive value impossible. Therefore, we propose to assess the tumor response per CMS in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. This will provide us with clear data on the predictive value for chemotherapy response of the CMSs. METHODS: In this prospective, single arm, multicenter intervention study, 262 patients with resectable microsatellite stable cT3-4NxM0 colon cancer will be treated with two courses of neoadjuvant and two courses of adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint is the pathological tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy per CMS. Secondary endpoints are radiological tumor response, the prognostic value of these responses for recurrence free survival and overall survival and the differences in CMS classification of the same tumor before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study is scheduled to be performed in 8-10 Dutch hospitals. The first patient was included in February 2020. DISCUSSION: Patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage colon cancer is far from optimal. The CMS classification is a promising new biomarker, but a solid chemotherapy response assessment per subtype is lacking. In this study we will investigate whether CMS classification can be of added value in clinical decision making by analyzing the predictive value for chemotherapy response. This study can provide the results necessary to proceed to future studies in which (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy may be withhold in patients with a specific CMS subtype, who show no benefit from chemotherapy and for whom possible new treatments can be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL8177) at 11-26-2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8177 . The study has been approved by the medical ethics committee Utrecht (MEC18/712).

Circulating tumor DNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer (MEDOCC-CrEATE): study protocol for a trial within a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of patients with minimal residual disease (MRD) after surgery for stage II colon cancer (CC) remains an urgent unmet clinical need to improve selection of patients who might benefit form adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is indicative for MRD and has high predictive value for recurrent disease. The MEDOCC-CrEATE trial investigates how many stage II CC patients with detectable ctDNA after surgery will accept ACT and whether ACT reduces the risk of recurrence in these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: MEDOCC-CrEATE follows the 'trial within cohorts' (TwiCs) design. Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are included in the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort (PLCRC) and give informed consent for collection of clinical data, tissue and blood samples, and consent for future randomization. MEDOCC-CrEATE is a subcohort within PLCRC consisting of 1320 stage II CC patients without indication for ACT according to current guidelines, who are randomized 1:1 into an experimental and a control arm. In the experimental arm, post-surgery blood samples and tissue are analyzed for tissue-informed detection of plasma ctDNA, using the PGDx elio™ platform. Patients with detectable ctDNA will be offered ACT consisting of 8 cycles of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin while patients without detectable ctDNA and patients in the control group will standard follow-up according to guideline. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients receiving ACT when ctDNA is detectable after resection. The main secondary outcome is 2-year recurrence rate (RR), but also includes 5-year RR, disease free survival, overall survival, time to recurrence, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed by intention to treat. DISCUSSION: The MEDOCC-CrEATE trial will provide insight into the willingness of stage II CC patients to be treated with ACT guided by ctDNA biomarker testing and whether ACT will prevent recurrences in a high-risk population. Use of the TwiCs design provides the opportunity to randomize patients before ctDNA measurement, avoiding ethical dilemmas of ctDNA status disclosure in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL6281/NTR6455 . Registered 18 May 2017, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6281.

Pathological Complete Response Following Different Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is associated with better survival, less local recurrence, and less distant failure. Furthermore, pCR indicates that the rectum may have been preserved. This meta-analysis gives an overview of available neoadjuvant treatment strategies for LARC and analyzes how these perform in achieving pCR as compared with the standard of care. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central bibliographic databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials in which patients received neoadjuvant treatment for MRI-staged nonmetastatic resectable LARC were included. The primary outcome was pCR, defined as ypT0N0. A meta-analysis of studies comparing an intervention with standard fluoropyrimidine-based chemoradiation (CRT) was performed. RESULTS: Of the 17 articles included in the systematic review, 11 were used for the meta-analysis. Addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based CRT resulted in significantly more pCR compared with fluoropyrimidine-based CRT only (OR 1.46), but at the expense of more ≥ grade 3 toxicity. Other treatment strategies, including consolidation/induction chemotherapy and short-course radiotherapy (SCRT), did not improve pCR rates. None of the included trials reported a benefit in local control or OS. Five-year DFS was significantly worse after SCRT-delay compared with CRT (59% vs. 75.1%, HR 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: All included trials fail to deliver high-level evidence to show an improvement in pCR compared with standard fluoropyrimidine-based CRT. The addition of oxaliplatin might result in more pCR but at the expense of more toxicity. Furthermore, this benefit does not translate into less local recurrence or improved survival.

Performance of four platforms for KRAS mutation detection in plasma cell-free DNA: ddPCR, Idylla, COBAS z480 and BEAMing.

Multiple platforms are commercially available for the detection of circulating cell-free tumour DNA (ctDNA) from liquid biopsies. Since platforms have different input and output variables, deciding what platform to use for a given clinical or research question can be daunting. This study aimed to provide insight in platform selection criteria by comparing four commercial platforms that detect KRAS ctDNA hotspot mutations: Bio-Rad droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), BioCartis Idylla, Roche COBAS z480 and Sysmex BEAMing. Platform sensitivities were determined using plasma samples from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and synthetic reference samples, thereby eliminating variability in amount of plasma analysed and ctDNA isolation methods. The prevalence of KRAS nucleotide alterations was set against platform-specific breadth of target. Platform comparisons revealed that ddPCR and BEAMing detect more KRAS mutations amongst mCRC patients than Idylla and COBAS z480. Maximum sample throughput was highest for ddPCR and COBAS z480. Total annual costs were highest for BEAMing and lowest for Idylla and ddPCR. In conclusion, when selecting a platform for detection of ctDNA hotspot mutations the desired test sensitivity, breadth of target, maximum sample throughput, and total annual costs are critical factors that should be taken into consideration. Based on the results of this study, laboratories will be able to select the optimal platform for their needs.

Prognostic value of primary tumour resection in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer: Individual patient data analysis of first-line randomised trials from the ARCAD database.

Indication for primary tumour resection (PTR) in asymptomatic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is unclear. Previous retrospective analyses suggest a survival benefit for patients who underwent PTR. The aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of PTR in patients with synchronous mCRC by analysis of recent large RCTs including systemic therapy with modern targeted agents. Individual patient data (IPD) of 3423 patients enrolled into 8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with first-line systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analysed. The number of patients with unresected synchronous mCRC, resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC was 710 (21%), 1705 (50%) and 1008 (29%), respectively. Adjusting for age, gender, performance status (PS) and prior chemotherapy, the unresected group had a significantly worse median overall survival (16.4 m) compared with the synchronous resected (22.2 m; hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4 m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, median progression-free survival was significantly worse for the unresected group compared with the synchronous resected (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66) groups. In a multivariate analysis, the observed associations remained significant. This largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date demonstrates an improved survival in synchronous mCRC patients after PTR. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Until results of ongoing RCTs are available, both upfront PTR followed by systemic treatment and upfront systemic treatment are considered appropriate treatment strategies.

Feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer: real-life data from The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The RECOURSE trial showed clinical efficacy for trifluridine/tipiracil for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice in The Netherlands. METHODS: Medical records of patients from 17 centers treated in the trifluridine/tipiracil compassionate use program were reviewed and checked for RECOURSE eligibility criteria. Baseline characteristics, safety, and survival times were compared, and prespecified baseline characteristics were tested in multivariate analyses for prognostic significance on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients with a median age of 62 years were analyzed. Forty-three patients (32%) did not meet the RECOURSE eligibility criteria for not having received all prior standard treatments (n = 35, 26%) and/or ECOG performance status (PS) 2 (n = 12, 9%). The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (n = 44, 32%), leukopenia (n = 8, 6%), anemia (n = 7, 5%), and fatigue (n = 7, 5%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median OS were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.0-6.9), respectively. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had a worse median OS (3.2 months) compared to patients with ECOG PS 0-1 (5.9 months). ECOG PS, KRAS-mutation status, white blood cell count, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase were prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice is feasible and safe. Differences in patient characteristics between our population and the RECOURSE study population should be taken into account in the interpretation of survival data. Our results argue against the use of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with ECOG PS 2. FUNDING: Johannes J.M. Kwakman received an unrestricted research grant from Servier.

Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab versus observation in metastatic colorectal cancer: updated results and molecular subgroup analyses of the phase 3 CAIRO3 study.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 CAIRO3 study showed that capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance treatment after six cycles capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CAPOX-B) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is effective, without compromising quality of life. In this post hoc analysis with updated follow-up and data regarding sidedness, we defined subgroups according to RAS/BRAF mutation status and mismatch repair (MMR) status, and investigated their influence on treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 558 patients with previously untreated mCRC and stable disease or better after six cycles CAPOX-B induction treatment were randomised to either CAP-B maintenance treatment (n = 279) or observation (n = 279). Upon first progression, patients were to receive CAPOX-B reintroduction until second progression (PFS2, primary end point). We centrally assessed RAS/BRAF mutation status and MMR status, or used local results if central assessment was not possible. Intention-to-treat stratified Cox models adjusted for baseline covariables were used to examine whether treatment efficacy was modified by RAS/BRAF mutation status. RESULTS: RAS, BRAF mutations, and MMR deficiency were detected in 240/420 (58%), 36/381 (9%), and 4/279 (1%) patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 87 months (IQR 69-97), all mutational subgroups showed significant improvement from maintenance treatment for the primary end point PFS2 [RAS/BRAF wild-type: hazard ratio (HR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.39-0.84); RAS-mutant: HR 0.74 (0.55-0.98); V600EBRAF-mutant: HR 0.28 (0.12-0.64)] and secondary end points, except for the RAS-mutant subgroup regarding overall survival. Adjustment for sidedness instead of primary tumour location yielded comparable results. Although right-sided tumours were associated with inferior prognosis, both patients with right- and left-sided tumours showed significant benefit from maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-B maintenance treatment after six cycles CAPOX-B is effective in first-line treatment of mCRC across all mutational subgroups. The benefit of maintenance treatment was most pronounced in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type and V600EBRAF-mutant tumours. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT00442637.

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.

Randomized phase III trial of S-1 versus capecitabine in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: SALTO study by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common side-effect of capecitabine. S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine with comparable efficacy to capecitabine in gastrointestinal cancers but associated with a lower incidence of HFS in Asian patients. This study compares the incidence of HFS between S-1 and capecitabine as first-line treatment in Western metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC and planned treatment with fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally for patients <70 years; 1000 mg/m2 for patients ≥70 years, twice daily on days 1-14) or S-1 (30 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14) in 3-weekly cycles, with bevacizumab optional in both groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of any grade HFS, as assessed by both physicians and patients (diaries). Secondary endpoints included grade 3 HFS, other toxicities, relative dose intensity, progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were randomized in 27 centres. The incidence of any grade HFS as assessed by physicians was 73% in the capecitabine group (n = 80) and 45% in the S-1 group (n = 80) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.31 (0.16-0.60), P = 0.0005]. The incidence of grade 3 HFS was 21% and 4% (P = 0.003), respectively. Patient-assessed any grade HFS was 84% and 58%, respectively (P = 0.004). Grade 3 anorexia was more common in the S-1 group (3% versus 13%, P = 0.03). Median relative dose intensity was 88% in the capecitabine group and 95% in the S-1 group (P = 0.026). There were no statistically significant differences in median progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival rates. CONCLUSION: Treatment with S-1 in Western mCRC patients is associated with a significantly lower incidence of HFS compared with capecitabine, with comparable efficacy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01918852.

Imatinib treatment of poor prognosis mesenchymal-type primary colon cancer: a proof-of-concept study in the preoperative window period (ImPACCT).

BACKGROUND: The identification of four Consensus Molecular Subtypes (CMS1-4) of colorectal cancer forms a new paradigm for the design and evaluation of subtype-directed therapeutic strategies. The most aggressive subtype - CMS4 - has the highest chance of disease recurrence. Novel adjuvant therapies for patients with CMS4 tumours are therefore urgently needed. CMS4 tumours are characterized by expression of mesenchymal and stem-like genes. Previous pre-clinical work has shown that targeting Platelet-Derived Growth Factor Receptors (PDGFRs) and the related KIT receptor with imatinib is potentially effective against mesenchymal-type colon cancer. In the present study we aim to provide proof for the concept that imatinib can reduce the aggressive phenotype of primary CMS4 colon cancer. METHODS: Tumour biopsies from patients with newly diagnosed stage I-III colon cancer will be analysed with a novel RT-qPCR test to pre-select patients with CMS4 tumours. Selected patients (n = 27) will receive treatment with imatinib (400 mg per day) starting two weeks prior to planned tumour resection. To assess treatment-induced changes in the aggressive CMS4 phenotype, RNA sequencing will be performed on pre- and post-treatment tissue samples. DISCUSSION: The development of effective adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer is hindered by multiple factors. First, new drugs that may have value in the prevention of (early) distant recurrence are almost always first tested in patients with heavily pre-treated metastatic disease. Second, measuring on-target drug effects and biological consequences in tumour tissue is not commonly a part of the study design. Third, due to the lack of patient selection tools, clinical trials in the adjuvant setting require large patient populations. Finally, the evaluation of recurrence-prevention requires a long-term follow-up. In the ImPACCT trial these issues are addressed by including newly diagnosed pre-selected patients with CMS4 tumours prior to primary tumour resection, rather than non-selected patients with late-stage disease. By making use of the pre-operative window period, the biological effect of imatinib treatment on CMS4 tumours can be rapidly assessed. Delivering proof-of-concept for drug action in early stage disease should form the basis for the design of future trials with subtype-targeted therapies in colon cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02685046 . Registration date: February 9, 2016.

Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment after first-line induction treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: Capecitabine and bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance therapy has shown to be more effective compared with observation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients achieving stable disease or better after six cycles of first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab treatment in terms of progression-free survival. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance treatment. METHODS: Decision analysis with Markov modelling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance compared with observation was performed based on CAIRO3 study results (n = 558). An additional analysis was performed in patients with complete or partial response. The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as the additional cost per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, calculated from EQ-5D questionnaires and literature and LYs gained. Univariable sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of input parameters on the ICER, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis represents uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: CAP-B maintenance compared with observation resulted in 0.21 QALYs (0.18LYs) gained at a mean cost increase of €36,845, yielding an ICER of €175,452 per QALY (€204,694 per LY). Varying the difference in health-related quality of life between CAP-B maintenance and observation influenced the ICER most. For patients achieving complete or partial response on capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab induction treatment, an ICER of €149,300 per QALY was calculated. CONCLUSION: CAP-B maintenance results in improved health outcomes measured in QALYs and LYs compared with observation, but also in a relevant increase in costs. Despite the fact that there is no consensus on cost-effectiveness thresholds in cancer treatment, CAP-B maintenance may not be considered cost-effective.

Yttrium-90 radioembolization for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a prospective cohort study on circulating angiogenic factors and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Yttrium-90 radioembolization (90Y-RE) as a treatment for liver tumours induces radiation damage and hypoxia in liver tissue, which is also a trigger for systemic release of angiogenic factors, potentially stimulating tumour growth. We examined changes in circulating angiogenic factors following 90Y-RE and investigated the association between response and angiogenic factors. In this prospective study, 42 patients with unresectable, chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRCLM) were treated with 90Y-RE. Blood samples were collected pre-treatment and at 0, 1, 3, 7 and 30 days of follow-up. Response was measured with MRI according to RECIST 1.1 at 1 month and subsequently 3-month interval until progressive disease (PD) occurred. Associations between circulating angiogenic factors and response were examined with linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: Following 90Y-RE, three angiogenic factors demonstrated an increase in plasma levels, i.e., vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2). Non-responders (= PD at 1-month follow-up, n = 10) had a significant increase of Ang-2 and HGF at 3 and 7 days post treatment compared to responders (= stable disease or better, n = 32), who showed little to no changes in plasma levels (respectively p = 0.01 and p = 0.007). Median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval 6.1-12.4). CONCLUSIONS: Significant increases in plasma levels of Ang-2 and HGF in the first week after treatment were associated with rapid progressive disease of liver lesions at 1 month after 90Y-RE. Combination of 90Y-RE with anti-angiogenic therapy may reduce these effects and result in better response.

Prospective Dutch colorectal cancer cohort: an infrastructure for long-term observational, prognostic, predictive and (randomized) intervention research.

BACKGROUND: Systematic evaluation and validation of new prognostic and predictive markers, technologies and interventions for colorectal cancer (CRC) is crucial for optimizing patients' outcomes. With only 5-15% of patients participating in clinical trials, generalizability of results is poor. Moreover, current trials often lack the capacity for post-hoc subgroup analyses. For this purpose, a large observational cohort study, serving as a multiple trial and biobanking facility, was set up by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). METHODS/DESIGN: The Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort is a prospective multidisciplinary nationwide observational cohort study in the Netherlands (yearly CRC incidence of 15 500). All CRC patients (stage I-IV) are eligible for inclusion, and longitudinal clinical data are registered. Patients give separate consent for the collection of blood and tumor tissue, filling out questionnaires, and broad randomization for studies according to the innovative cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design (cmRCT), serving as an alternative study design for the classic RCT. Objectives of the study include: 1) systematically collected long-term clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biomaterials from daily CRC practice; and 2) to facilitate future basic, translational and clinical research including interventional and cost-effectiveness studies for both national and international research groups with short inclusion periods, even for studies with stringent inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Seven months after initiation 650 patients have been enrolled, eight centers participate, 15 centers await IRB approval and nine embedded cohort- or cmRCT-designed studies are currently recruiting patients. CONCLUSION: This cohort provides a unique multidisciplinary data, biobank, and patient-reported outcomes collection initiative, serving as an infrastructure for various kinds of research aiming to improve treatment outcomes in CRC patients. This comprehensive design may serve as an example for other tumor types.

The prognostic value of WHO performance status in relation to quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) is an established prognostic factor in patients with advanced cancer and is usually scored by the treating physician. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire as reported by cancer patients is a validated tool to assess quality of life (QoL). Subjectivity plays a role in both assessments, and data on a direct comparison are scarce. METHODS: We compared the prognostic value for overall survival (OS) of the WHO PS to the baseline physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (QLQ-C30 PF) in a prospective randomised phase 3 trial in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), the CAIRO study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the baseline QLQ-C30 PF. QLQ-C30 PF was considered 'good' if the score was more than 66.7% and 'poor' if 66.7% or less. Results were validated in a subsequent phase 3 study in ACC, the CAIRO2 study. RESULTS: The median OS for patients with a 'good' QLQ-C30 PF and a 'poor' PF in patients with WHO PS 0 was 20.3 months (n = 300) and 10.4 months (n = 44), in patients with WHO PS 1 16.8 months (n = 125) and 10.1 months (n = 63), and in patients with WHO PS 2 16.2 months (n = 11) and 9.9 months (n = 12), respectively. In a Cox regression model which included other prognostic factors, 'good' versus 'poor' QLQ-C30 PF was significantly prognostic for OS (0.57 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.72), but not WHO PS. These results were confirmed in the CAIRO2 study. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in ACC patients that PF, as assessed by patients using the EORTC QLQ-C30, is superior in terms of prognostic value to WHO PS as scored by physicians. Our data support to include the results of baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 PF instead of WHO PS as a stratification parameter in oncology trials.