Impact of sex on the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil and folinic acid versus fluorouracil and folinic acid alone as maintenance therapy in RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subgroup analysis of the PanaMa-study (AIO-KRK-0212).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are usually conducted irrespective of sex. Sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, however, are gaining interest. METHODS: PanaMa investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) versus FU/FA alone after induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. In this post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex. Evaluated efficacy endpoints during maintenance treatment were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate during maintenance therapy. Safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events during maintenance therapy. RESULTS: In total, 165 male and 83 female patients were randomized and treated. Male and female patients showed numerically better objective response rates with Pmab, without reaching statistical significance. Male patients derived a significant benefit from the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment with regard to PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.88; P = 0.006] that was not observed in female patients (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53-1.35; P = 0.491). The better PFS for male patients treated with Pmab did not translate into improved OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P = 0.452). Female patients showed numerically improved OS when treated with Pmab. There was no difference in the total of grade ≥3 adverse events during maintenance regarding sex (P = 0.791). Female patients, however, had a higher rate of any grade nausea, diarrhea and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: In the PanaMa trial, the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC with FU/FA improved the outcome in terms of the primary endpoint (PFS) particularly in male patients. Female patients did not show the same benefit while experiencing higher rates of adverse events. Our results support the development of sex-specific protocols.

Study protocol of the FIRE-8 (AIO-KRK/YMO-0519) trial: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II trial investigating the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Initial systemic therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually based on two- or three-drug chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine), oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, combined with either anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) or, for RAS wild-type (WT) tumors, anti-EGFR antibodies (panitumumab or cetuximab). Recommendations for patients who are not eligible for intensive combination therapies are limited and include fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab or single agent anti-EGFR antibody treatment. The use of a monochemotherapy concept of trifluridine/ tipiracil in combination with monoclonal antibodies is not approved for first-line therapy, yet. Results from the phase II TASCO trial evaluating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus bevacicumab in first-line treatment of mCRC patients and from the phase I/II APOLLON trial investigating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus panitumumab in pre-treated mCRC patients suggest favourable activity and tolerability of these new therapeutic approaches. METHODS: FIRE-8 ( NCT05007132 ) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study which aims to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA), orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, q28 days) plus either the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (6 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm A] or (as control arm) the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm B] in RAS WT mCRC patients. The primary objective is to demonstrate an improved objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 from 30% (control arm) to 55% with panitumumab. With a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 138 evaluable patients are needed. Given an estimated drop-out rate of 10%, 153 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC patients. The administration of anti-EGFR antibodies rather than anti-VEGF antibodies in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil may result in an increased initial efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2019-004223-20 . Registered October 22, 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05007132 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Dynamics in treatment response and disease progression of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with focus on BRAF status and primary tumor location: analysis of untreated RAS-wild-type mCRC patients receiving FOLFOXIRI either with or without panitumumab in the VOLFI trial (AIO KRK0109).

PURPOSE: In mCRC, disease dynamics may play a critical role in the understanding of long-term outcome. We evaluated depth of response (DpR), time to DpR, and post-DpR survival as relevant endpoints. METHODS: We analyzed DpR by central review of computer tomography images (change from baseline to smallest tumor diameter), early tumor shrinkage (≥ 20% reduction in tumor diameter at first reassessment), time to DpR (study randomization to DpR-image), post-DpR progression-free survival (pPFS = DpR-image to tumor progression or death), and post-DpR overall survival (pOS = DpR-image to death) with special focus on BRAF status in 66 patients and primary tumor site in 86 patients treated within the VOLFI-trial, respectively. RESULTS: BRAF wild-type (BRAF-WT) compared to BRAF mutant (BRAF-MT) patients had greater DpR (- 57.6% vs. - 40.8%, p = 0.013) with a comparable time to DpR [4.0 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) vs. 3.9 (95% CI 2.5-5.5) months; p = 0.8852]. pPFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.9-8.0) versus 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-4.0) months in favor of BRAF-WT patients (HR 0.24 (95% CI 0.11-0.53); p < 0.001). This transferred into a significant difference in pOS [33.6 (95% CI 26.0-41.3) vs. 5.4 (95% CI 5.0-5.9) months; HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.55); p < 0.001]. Similar observations were made for patients stratified for primary tumor site. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF-MT patients derive a less profound treatment response compared to BRAF-WT patients. The difference in outcome according to BRAF status is evident after achievement of DpR with BRAF-MT patients hardly deriving any further disease control beyond DpR. Our observations hint towards an aggressive tumor evolution in BRAF-MT tumors, which may already be molecularly detectable at the time of DpR.