Hepatectomy versus systemic therapy for liver-limited BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal liver metastases: multicentre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: To date, only two studies have compared the outcomes of patients with liver-limited BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) managed with resection versus systemic therapy alone, and these have reported contradictory findings. METHODS: In this observational, international, multicentre study, patients with liver-limited BRAF V600E-mutated CRLMs treated with resection or systemic therapy alone were identified from institutional databases. Patterns of recurrence/progression and overall survival were compared using multivariable analyses of the entire cohort and a propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Of 170 patients included, 119 underwent hepatectomy and 51 received systemic treatment. Surgically treated patients had a more favourable pattern of recurrence with most recurrences limited to a single site, whereas diffuse progression was more common among patients who received systemic treatment (19 versus 44%; P = 0.002). Surgically treated patients had longer median overall survival (35 versus 20 months; P < 0.001). Hepatectomy was independently associated with better OS than systemic treatment alone (HR 0.37, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.65). In the propensity score-matched cohort, surgically treated patients had longer median overall survival (28 versus 20 months; P < 0.001); hepatectomy was independently associated with better overall survival (HR 0.47, 0.25 to 0.88). CONCLUSION: BRAF V600E mutation should not be considered a contraindication to surgery for patients with resectable, liver-only CRLMs.

Trop-2 and Nectin-4 immunohistochemical expression in metastatic colorectal cancer: searching for the right population for drugs' development.

BACKGROUND: Trop-2 and Nectin-4 are transmembrane proteins overexpressed in many tumours and targets of antibody-drug conjugates (ADC). In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the role of Trop-2 and Nectin-4 has been poorly investigated. METHODS: Tumour samples of patients randomised in the phase III TRIBE2 were assessed for Trop-2 and Nectin-4 expression. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six tumours were assessed for Trop-2 expression. 90 (23%), 115 (30%) and 181 (47%) were Trop-2 high, medium and low, respectively. Patients with low Trop-2 tumours achieved longer PFS (12 versus 9.9 months, p = 0.047) and OS (27.3 versus 21.3 months, p = 0.015) than those with high/medium Trop-2 tumours. These findings were confirmed in multivariate analysis (p = 0.022 and p = 0.023, respectively). A greater OS benefit from treatment intensification with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab was observed in patients with high/medium Trop-2 tumours (p-for-interaction = 0.041). Two hundred fifty-one tumours were assessed for Nectin-4 expression. Fourteen (5%), 67 (27%) and 170 (68%) were high, medium and low, respectively. No prognostic impact was observed based on Nectin-4 expression and no interaction effect was reported between Nectin-4 expression groups and treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRC, expression levels of Trop-2 and Nectin-4 are heterogeneous, suggesting a target-driven development of anti-Trop2 and anti-Nectin-4 ADCs. Medium/high Trop-2 expression is associated with worse prognosis and higher benefit from chemotherapy intensification.

Demystifying BRAF Mutation Status in Colorectal Liver Metastases : A Multi-institutional, Collaborative Approach to 6 Open Clinical Questions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical implications of BRAF -mutated (mut BRAF ) colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of mut BRAF status in CRLMs are largely unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for mut BRAF CRLM were identified from prospectively maintained registries of the collaborating institutions. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared among patients with V600E versus non-V600E mutations, KRAS/BRAF comutation versus mut BRAF alone, microsatellite stability status (Microsatellite Stable (MSS) vs instable (MSI-high)), upfront resectable versus converted tumors, extrahepatic versus liver-limited disease, and intrahepatic recurrence treated with repeat hepatectomy versus nonoperative management. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients harboring BRAF -mutated tumors were included. BRAF V600E mutation was associated with shorter OS (30.6 vs 144 mo, P =0.004), but not RFS compared with non-V600E mutations. KRAS/BRAF comutation did not affect outcomes. MSS tumors were associated with shorter RFS (9.1 vs 26 mo, P <0.001) but not OS (33.5 vs 41 mo, P =0.3) compared with MSI-high tumors, whereas patients with resected converted disease had slightly worse RFS (8 vs 11 mo, P =0.01) and similar OS (30 vs 40 mo, P =0.4) compared with those with upfront resectable disease. Patients with extrahepatic disease had worse OS compared with those with liver-limited disease (8.8 vs 40 mo, P <0.001). Repeat hepatectomy after intrahepatic recurrence was associated with improved OS compared with nonoperative management (41 vs 18.7 mo, P =0.004). All results continued to hold true in the multivariable OS analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgery may be futile in patients with BRAF -mutated CRLM and concurrent extrahepatic disease, resection of converted disease resulted in encouraging survival in the absence of extrahepatic spread. Importantly, second hepatectomy in select patients with recurrence was associated with improved outcomes. Finally, MSI-high status identifies a better prognostic group, with regard to RFS while patients with non-V600E mutations have excellent prognosis.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown clinical benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) or microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours in previous studies. Both an active combination chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI; fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) and bevacizumab seem able to increase the immunogenicity of pMMR or MSS tumours. We aimed to provide preliminary evidence of benefit from the addition of the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: AtezoTRIBE was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study of patients (aged 18-70 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 0-2 and aged 71-75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with histologically confirmed, unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate organ function, who were recruited from 22 oncology centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour site, and previous adjuvant therapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm randomly assigned (1:2) patients via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two groups: the control group received first-line FOLFOXIRI (intravenous 165 mg/m2 irinotecan, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 3200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as a 48 h infusion) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously), and the atezolizumab group received the same regimen plus atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously). Combination treatments were administered up to eight 14-day cycles followed by maintenance with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab, according to randomisation group, until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The study recruitment is completed. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03721653. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2018, and Feb 26, 2020, 218 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (73 in the control group and 145 in the atezolizumab group). At the data cutoff (Aug 1, 2021), median follow-up was 19·9 months (IQR 17·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival was 13·1 months (80% CI 12·5-13·8) in the atezolizumab group and 11·5 months (10·0-12·6) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [80% CI 0·56-0·85]; p=0·012; adjusted HR 0·70 [80% CI 0·57-0·87]; log-rank test p=0·018). The most frequent all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (59 [42%] of 142 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 26 [36%] of 72 patients in the control group), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs nine [13%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [10%] vs seven [10%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) patients in the atezolizumab group and in 19 (26%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths (due to acute myocardial infarction and bronchopulmonary haemorrhage) were reported in the atezolizumab group; none were reported in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is safe and improved progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: GONO Foundation, ARCO Foundation, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche.

Benefit from upfront FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab in BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients: does primary tumour location matter?

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with right-sided tumours and ECOG-PS = 0 may achieve benefit from the triplet regimen differently than those with left-sided tumours and ECOG-PS > 0. METHODS: The predictive impact of primary sidedness and ECOG-PS was evaluated in a large real-life dataset of 296 BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC patients treated with upfront triplet or doublet ± bevacizumab. Biological differences between right- and left-sided BRAFV600E-mutated CRCs were further investigated in an independent cohort of 1162 samples. RESULTS: A significant interaction effect between primary sidedness and treatment intensity was reported in terms of both PFS (p = 0.010) and OS (p = 0.003), with a beneficial effect of the triplet in the right-sided group and a possible detrimental effect in the left-sided. No interaction effect was observed between ECOG-PS and chemo-backbone. In the MSS/pMMR population, a consistent trend for a side-related subgroup effect was observed when FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab was compared to oxaliplatin-based doublets±bevacizumab (p = 0.097 and 0.16 for PFS and OS, respectively). Among MSS/pMMR tumours, the BM1 subtype was more prevalent in the right-sided group (p = 0.0019, q = 0.0139). No significant differences were observed according to sidedness in the MSI-H/dMMR population. CONCLUSIONS: Real-life data support the use of FOLFOXIRI ± bevacizumab only in BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC patients with right-sided tumours.

Upper transversal hepatectomy with double hepatic vein resection and reconstruction to treat colorectal cancer liver metastases at the hepatocaval confluence: a strategy to achieve R0 liver-sparing resection.

BACKGROUND: Repeated hepatectomies in the therapeutic route of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may improve their long term survival. Hepatic vein (HV) resection and reconstruction allows parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) and R0 resections for CRLM in contact with one HV. We aimed at verifying the feasibility of PSH with double HV resection and direct reconstruction for CRLM in contact with two HVs at the hepatocaval confluence. METHODS: Out of 106 consecutive PSH performed for CRLM deep-located in segments I-IVa-VII-VIII, four (3.7%) PSH were performed with resection of CRLM en bloc with two adjacent HVs which were both reconstructed with double direct HV anastomosis: 3 cases between right-HV and middle-HV and 1 case between middle-HV and left-HV. Two patients had previously undergone liver resection. Three patients had one single lesion and one had 5 CRLMs. RESULTS: Median size of CRLMs in contact with HVs was 25 mm (range 22-30 mm). At histological examination, all resections were R0 except one R1-vascular (detachment from glissonean pedicle): in all cases at least one HV and in 1 case both HVs were infiltrated by the tumor cells. After median follow-up of 18 (range 3.5-41.2) months, all HVs were patent. All patients were alive and in good general conditions, and 3 patients were disease free (one of them following a liver re-resection). One patient experienced a grade IIIa complication. Median hospital-stay was 11 (range 9-13) days. CONCLUSION: In patients with CRLMs involving two adjacent HVs at the hepatocaval confluence, liver resection with double HV resection and direct reconstruction is feasible and may be considered to guarantee oncological radicality (R0) and spare health parenchyma.

CEA increase as a marker of disease progression after first-line induction therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. A pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies.

BACKGROUND: In mCRC, CEA is used to monitor response to systemic therapy together with imaging. After the end of induction, no major improvement in tumour shrinkage is expected, and the availability of a marker able to predict progressive disease (PD) versus no-PD might allow avoiding CT scans. METHODS: We pooled data from patients with baseline CEA ≥ 10 ng/mL included in TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies with the aim of identifying a threshold for percent increase of CEA from nadir able to predict PD after the end of the induction therapy. RESULTS: In total, 1178 paired CEA and radiological assessments from 434 patients were included. According to the optimal cut-off determined by ROC, a CEA increase of at least 120% from nadir differentiated between PD and no-PD with a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 78%, excluding PD in the 92% of radiological assessments and allowing to avoid the 67% of CT scans. However, CEA cut-off of 120% was not able to detect radiological PD in 26% of cases. In order to mitigate this issue, a different clinically relevant threshold was evaluated based on the best sensitivity cut-off. Therefore, using any CEA increase from nadir as a threshold, the sensitivity grew to 93% and only in the 7% of cases the radiological PD was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRC with baseline CEA ≥ 10 ng/mL, CEA values can accurately predict PD versus no-PD after the end of the first-line induction therapy.

Treatments after progression to first-line FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies by GONO.

BACKGROUND: FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (bev) is a first-line regimen of proven activity and efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer. The upfront exposure to three cytotoxics raises concerns about the efficacy of treatments after progression. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of treatments after progression to upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev in patients enrolled in two randomised Phase 3 studies (TRIBE and TRIBE2) that compared FOLFOXIRI/bev to doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI)/bev. Response rate, progression-free survival (2nd PFS) and overall survival (2nd OS) during treatments after progression were assessed. The RECIST response in first line and the oxaliplatin and irinotecan-free interval (OIFI) were investigated as potential predictors of benefit from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction. RESULTS: Longer 2nd PFS was reported in patients receiving FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction compared to doublets ± bev or other treatments (6.1 versus 4.4 and 3.9 months, respectively, P = 0.013), and seems limited to patients achieving a response during first line (6.9 versus 4.2 and 4.7 months, respectively, P = 0.005) and an OIFI ≥ 4 months (7.2 versus 6.5 and 4.6 months, respectively, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: First-line FOLFOXIRI/bev does not impair the administration of effective second-line therapies. First-line response and longer OIFI seem associated with improved response and 2nd PFS from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction, without impacting 2nd OS.

Appropriateness of trifluridine/tipiracil in the clinical practice of third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Aim: To help to remove misperception of an appropriate position of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Materials & methods: The RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used by a panel of Italian experts to develop recommendations concerning daily practice with FTD/TPI. Forty-three clinical scenarios were discussed in two rounds and the resulting statements were rated as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate, according to the median score. Results: Several topics were dealt with, covering the profile of eligible patients, therapeutic options beyond the second line, the practice of treatment with FTD/TPI, evaluation and efficacy and toxicity, as well as costs and compliance. Conclusion: FTD/TPI is an important therapeutic resource in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that combines manageability and safety.

Lay abstract To remove misperception of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. An established Method for evaluating appropriateness of new drugs was used. Forty-three clinical scenarios were discussed in two rounds and the resulting statements were rated as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate, according to the median score. Several topics were dealt with, covering the profile of eligible patients, therapeutic options beyond the second line, efficacy and toxicity, as well as compliance. FTD/TPI is an important therapeutic resource in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that combines manageability and safety.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

The Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value is a new prognostic biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a pooled-analysis of the Valentino and TRIBE first-line trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune-inflammatory biomarkers (IIBs) showed a prognostic relevance in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed at evaluating the prognostic power of a new comprehensive biomarker, the Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV), in patients with mCRC receiving first-line therapy. METHODS: In the present pooled-analysis, we included patients enrolled in the Valentino and TRIBE trials. PIV was calculated as: (neutrophil count × platelet count × monocyte count)/lymphocyte count. A cut-off was determined using the maximally selected rank statistics method. Generalised boosted regression (GBR), the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazards regression models were used for survival analyses. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients were included. Overall, 208 patients (47%) had a low-baseline PIV and 230 (53%) had a high-baseline PIV. Patients with high PIV experienced a worse PFS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.36-2.03, P < 0.001) and worse OS (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57-2.57; P < 0.001) compared to patients with low PIV. PIV outperformed the other IIBs in the GBR model and in the multivariable models. CONCLUSION: PIV is a strong predictor of survival outcomes with better performance than other well-known IIBs in patients with mCRC treated with first-line therapy. PIV should be prospectively validated to better stratify mCRC patients undergoing first-line therapy.

Pharmacological effects of the simultaneous and sequential combinations of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and 5-fluorouracil in fluoropyrimidine-sensitive colon cancer cells.

The aim of this study was to investigate possible synergistic effects in vitro of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and 5-fluoruracil (5-FU) on fluoropyrimidine-sensitive colon cancer cell lines of different mutational status in order to build a rational basis for the future use of this combination therapy in adjuvant settings or as a first-line treatment for metastatic disease. Proliferation assays were performed on HT-29 (B-raf mutated), SW-620 (ras mutated), and Caco-2 (wild type) colon cancer cell lines exposed to 120-h treatments of 5-FU, TAS-102 and their different combination schedules (simultaneous, sequential and reverse) at equimolar and non-equimolar ratios. The synergistic, additive and antagonistic effects of 5-FU and TAS-102 were determined by the combination index (CI) and dose reduction index (DRI). Our preclinical in vitro results may suggest an apparently counterintuitive but strongly synergistic combination of 5-FU and TAS-102 in fluoropyrimidine-sensitive colon cancer cells allowing a marked theoretical reduction in the administered doses of both drugs. In particular, this association seems to be highly effective in wild-type colon cancer cells, both in sequential and simultaneous schedules. Together, these data may build a rational basis for the future use of TAS-102 combined with 5-FU in adjuvant settings, or as a first-line treatment for metastatic disease.

AtezoTRIBE: a randomised phase II study of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab as initial therapy for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. METHODS: AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12 months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. DISCUSSION: The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017-000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017.

Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: The ONKOTEV Study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of risk model scores to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory cancer patients is under investigation, aiming to stratify on an individual risk basis the subset of the cancer population that could mostly benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively assessed 843 patients with active cancers, collecting clinical and laboratory data. We screened all the patients with a duplex ultrasound (B-mode imaging and Doppler waveform analysis) of the upper and lower limbs to evaluate the right incidence of VTE (both asymptomatic and symptomatic). The efficacy of the existing Khorana risk model in preventing VTE was also explored in our population. Several risk factors associated with VTE were analyzed, leading to the construction of a risk model. The Fine and Gray model was used to account for death as a competing risk in the derivation of the new model. RESULTS: The risk factors significantly associated with VTE at univariate analysis and further confirmed in the multivariate analysis, after bootstrap validation, were the presence of metastatic disease, the compression of vascular/lymphatic structures by tumor, a history of previous VTE, and a Khorana score >2. Time-dependent receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed a significant improvement in the area under the curve of the new score over the Khorana model at 3 months (71.9% vs. 57.9%, p = .001), 6 months (75.4% vs. 58.6%, p < .001), and 12 months (69.8% vs. 58.3%, p = .014). CONCLUSION: ONKOTEV score steps into history of cancer-related-VTE as a promising tool to drive the decision about primary prophylaxis in cancer outpatients. The validation represents the goal of the prospective ONKOTEV-2 study, endorsed and approved by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Young Investigators Program. The Oncologist 2017;22:601-608 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Preventing venous thromboembolism in cancer outpatients with a risk model score will drive physicians' decision of starting thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients.

Clinico-pathological nomogram for predicting BRAF mutational status of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), BRAFV600E mutation has been variously associated to specific clinico-pathological features. METHODS: Two large retrospective series of mCRC patients from two Italian Institutions were used as training-set (TS) and validation-set (VS) for developing a nomogram predictive of BRAFV600E status. The model was internally and externally validated. RESULTS: In the TS, data from 596 mCRC patients were gathered (RAS wild-type (wt) 281 (47.1%); BRAFV600E mutated 54 (9.1%)); RAS and BRAFV600E mutations were mutually exclusive. In the RAS-wt population, right-sided primary (odds ratio (OR): 7.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.05-19.92), female gender (OR: 2.90, 95% CI 1.14-7.37) and mucinous histology (OR: 4.95, 95% CI 1.90-12.90) were independent predictors of BRAFV600E mutation, with high replication at internal validation (100%, 93% and 98%, respectively). A predictive nomogram was calculated: patients with the highest score (right-sided primary, female and mucinous) had a 81% chance to bear a BRAFV600E-mutant tumour; accuracy measures: AUC=0.812, SE:0.034, sensitivity:81.2%; specificity:72.1%. In the VS (508 pts, RAS wt: 262 (51.6%), BRAFV600E mutated: 49 (9.6%)), right-sided primary, female gender and mucinous histology were confirmed as independent predictors of BRAFV600E mutation with high accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Three simple and easy-to-collect characteristics define a useful nomogram for predicting BRAF status in mCRC with high specificity and sensitivity.

Location of Primary Tumor and Benefit From Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients With RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Right- and left-sided colorectal cancers (CRCs) differ in clinical and molecular characteristics. Some retrospective analyses suggested that patients with right-sided tumors derive less benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies; however, molecular selection in those studies was not extensive. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic CRC (mCRC) who were treated with single-agent anti-EGFRs or with cetuximab-irinotecan (if refractory to previous irinotecan) were included in the study. Differences in outcome between patients with right- and left-sided tumors were investigated. RESULTS: Of 75 patients, 14 and 61 had right- and left-sided tumors, respectively. None of the right-sided tumors responded according to RECIST, compared with 24 left-sided tumors (overall response rate: 0% vs. 41%; p = .0032), and only 2 patients with right-sided tumors (15%) versus 47 patients with left-sided tumors (80%) achieved disease control (p < .0001). The median duration of progression-free survival was 2.3 and 6.6 months in patients with right-sided and left-sided tumors, respectively (hazard ratio: 3.97; 95% confidence interval: 2.09-7.53; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with right-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC seemed to derive no benefit from single-agent anti-EGFRs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Right- and left-sided colorectal tumors have peculiar epidemiological and clinicopathological characteristics, distinct gene expression profiles and genetic alterations, and different prognoses. This study assessed the potential predictive impact of primary tumor site with regard to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody treatment in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The results demonstrated the lack of activity of anti-EGFRs in RAS and BRAF wild-type, right-sided tumors, thus suggesting a potential role for primary tumor location in driving treatment choices.

Upfront Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan Plus Bevacizumab With or Without Atezolizumab for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated and Overall Survival Results of the ATEZOTRIBE Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We report 4-year results of the phase II randomized AtezoTRIBE study. Eligible patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) received first-line fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)/bevacizumab (control group, n = 73) or FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (experimental group, n = 145). We present overall survival (OS) and updated outcomes according to tumor immune-related biomarkers, both in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and the cohort of patients with proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors. Median follow-up was 45.2 months (IQR, 42.6-49.2). In the ITT population, median OS was 33.0 and 27.2 months for experimental and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [80% CI, 0.61 to 0.98]; P = .084). An interaction effect between Immunoscore Immune-Checkpoint (IC) and treatment arm was observed (Pint, .089), with higher benefit from atezolizumab in the Immunoscore IC-high group. In the pMMR cohort (N = 202), median OS was 30.8 and 29.2 months for experimental and control groups, respectively (HR, 0.80 [80% CI, 0.63 to 1.02]; P = .117). Interactions between treatment group and tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC were reported (Pint, .043 and .092, respectively), with patients bearing TMB-high and Immunoscore IC-high tumors deriving higher benefit from the addition of atezolizumab. First-line FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab plus atezolizumab improves OS in patients with mCRC. In the pMMR group, patients with Immunoscore IC-high and/or TMB-high tumors are identified as a subgroup of interest to further develop this treatment.

FOLFIRI in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic or biliary tract carcinoma: a monoinstitutional experience.

Pancreatic and biliary tract carcinomas are very chemoresistant. After a first-line treatment with a gemcitabine-based regimen, no second-line scheme is consolidated in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and the activity of the FOLFIRI regimen as first-line or second-line chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic or biliary tract tumors. Fifty-four patients (30 with pancreatic tumor, nine with gallbladder tumor, and 15 with biliary tract tumor) were treated with FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m², day 1; leucovorin 100 mg/m² intravenously, days 1 and 2; 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² intravenous bolus, days 1 and 2; and 600 mg/m² in 22 h intravenously, continuous infusion days 1 and 2; every 14 days). Toxicity was recorded at each cycle according to the NCI-CTC V3.0 criteria, the response rate was verified each four cycles according to the RECIST criteria, and the progression-free survival rates as well as the overall survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall, the toxicity was mild. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 42.6% of patients. Grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity was rare. FOLFIRI as a first-line treatment produced a response rate of 25%. In the second-line group, 9/21 patients (42.9%) obtained a stable disease as best response. In the entire population, the median progression-free survival rates were 3.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-4.4] and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.4), respectively, in the first-line and the second-line cohort of patients. The median overall survival rates were 14.5 months (95% CI, 7.0-22.1) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-7.0), respectively, in the first-line and the second-line cohort of patients. FOLFIRI is feasible and well tolerated in patients with pancreatic or biliary tract tumors; it has a good activity in first line and mostly in patients with pancreatic cancer.