RESUMEN
Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur when cancer cells spread inside the abdominal cavity and entail an advanced stage of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prognosis, which is poor, correlates highly with tumour burden, as measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in specialized centres should be offered especially to patients with a low to moderate PCI when complete resection is expected. The presence of resectable metastatic disease in other organs is not a contraindication in well-selected patients. Although several retrospective and small prospective studies have suggested a survival benefit of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to CRS, the recently published phase III studies PRODIGE-7 in CRC patients with PM, and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP in resected CRC with high-risk of PM, failed to show any survival advantage of this strategy using oxaliplatin in a 30-min perfusion. Final results from ongoing randomized phase III trials testing CRS plus HIPEC based on mitomycin C (MMC) are awaited with interest. In this article, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD) and the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP), which is part of the Spanish Society of Surgical Oncology (SEOQ), reviewed the role of HIPEC plus CRS in CRC patients with PM. As a result, a series of recommendations to optimize the management of these patients is proposed.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Hipertermia Inducida , Neoplasias Peritoneales , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Peritoneales/secundario , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios Prospectivos , Terapia Combinada , Hipertermia Inducida/métodos , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
Efficiency of expanded genomic profiling (EGP) programmes in terms of final inclusion of patients in genomically matched therapies is still unknown. Fit patients with advanced and refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) were selected for an EGP programme. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples was performed. The purpose was to describe the prevalence of genomic alterations defined by the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT), as well as the percentage of patients finally included in genomically guided clinical trials. In total, 187 patients were recruited. Mutational profile was obtained in 177 patients (10 patients were failure due to insufficient tumour sample), copy number alterations in 41 patients and fusions in 31 patients. ESCAT-defined alterations were detected in 28.8% of the intention-to-analyse population. BRAF V600E was clustered in ESCAT I, with a prevalence of 3.7%, KRAS G12C and ERBB2 amplification were clustered in ESCAT II, whose prevalence was 4.2% and 1.6%, respectively. Most alterations were classified in ESCAT III (mutations in ERBB2, PIK3CA or FGFR genes and MET amplification) and IV (mutations in BRAF non-V600E, ERBB3, FBXW7, NOTCH, RNF43), with a single prevalence under 5%, except for PIK3CA mutation (9%). The final rate of inclusion into genomically guided clinical trials was 2.7%, including therapies targeting BRAF V600E or RNF43 mutations in two patients each, and ERBB2 mutation in one patient. In conclusion, EGP programmes in patients with advanced CRC are feasible and identify a subset of patients with potentially druggable genomic alterations. However, further efforts must be made to increase the rate of patients treated with genomically guided therapies.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas B-raf , Humanos , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas B-raf/genética , Neoplasias Colorrectales/genética , Mutación/genética , Genómica , Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto RendimientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus Spanish-based continuous-infusion high-dose fluorouracil (FU) plus oxaliplatin (FUOX) regimens as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX (oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid for 14 days plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks) or FUOX (continuous-infusion FU 2,250 mg/m2 during 48 hours on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 15, and 29 every 6 weeks). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in efficacy between XELOX and FUOX arms, which showed, respectively, median time to tumor progression (TTP; 8.9 v 9.5 months; P = .153); median overall survival (18.1 v 20.8 months; P = .145); and confirmed response rate (RR; 37% v 46%; P = .539). The safety profile of the two regimens was similar, although there were lower rates of grade 3/4 diarrhea (14% v 24%) and grade 1/2 stomatitis (28% v 43%), and higher rates of grade 1/2 hyperbilirubinemia (37% v 21%) and grade 1/2 hand-foot syndrome (14% v 5%) with XELOX versus FUOX, respectively. CONCLUSION: This randomized study shows a similar TTP of XELOX compared with FUOX in the first-line treatment of MCRC, although there was a trend for slightly lower RR and survival. XELOX can be considered as an alternative to FUOX.