Exploring the best treatment options for BRAF-mutant metastatic colon cancer.

The BRAFV600E mutation is a well-accepted poor prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as it confers Ras-independent stimulation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway involved in proliferation, migration, angiogenesis and the suppression of apoptosis. Analysis of the potential predictive value of BRAF for treatment efficacy is inherently confounded by this known prognostic impact. Currently, approved therapeutic strategies for patients with BRAF-mutant (BRAF-mt) mCRC are suboptimal, and uncertainty exists regarding how to best treat these patients. Based on the available evidence, it is currently not possible to confirm the superiority of any available treatment options cited in European Society for Medical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (that is, doublet or triplet chemotherapy regimens plus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor or anti-epidermal growth factor receptors), even if triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is the most accepted standard regimen. In this review, we highlight still-emerging strategies that could be deployed to combat BRAF-mt mCRC, including triplet chemotherapy plus available biologic agents, rationally derived combinations of targeted agents and immunotherapy. While it is clear that the needs of patients with BRAF-mt mCRC are currently unmet, we are cautiously optimistic that the recently renewed research interest in these patients will yield clinically relevant insights and therapeutic strategies.

Encorafenib plus cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients pre-treated with an anti-EGFR: An AGEO-GONO case series.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus cetuximab is efficient in anti-EGFR-naïve patients with BRAFV600E mutated (BRAFm) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No data are available concerning the efficacy of BRAF inhibitors associated with anti-EGFRs (B + E) in patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR agent. METHODS: We retrospectively collected a series of patients with BRAFm mCRC treated with B + E after previous anti-EGFR treatment, in 14 centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of treatment, and we reported objective response and disease control rates (ORR, DCR; RECIST V1.1). RESULTS: Twenty-five BRAFm mCRC patients were enrolled. Prior to B + E treatment, 4/10/11 patients were treated with 1/2/> 2 previous treatment lines. Ten patients received previous panitumumab, 14 cetuximab, 1 both. Immediate progression with previous anti-EGFR was reported for 7 patients. Anti-BRAF was encorafenib for 21 patients, dabrafenib for 4 patients, with cetuximab for 24 patients and panitumumab for 1 patient. ORR was 40% (10 patients) and DCR was 80% (20 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.01-7.95) and 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.75-NR). DCR amongst patients with previous primary resistance to anti-EGFR (N = 7) was 100%. Two patients discontinued B + E due to drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Though in a limited retrospective series of patients, these results show the efficacy of the combination of anti-BRAF and anti-EGFRs in BRAFm mCRC patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR. The use of this combination should thus not be ruled out in this population with limited therapeutic options.

Chemotherapy use in end-of-life digestive cancer patients: a retrospective AGEO observational study.

BACKGROUND: The use of chemotherapy (CT) near the end-of-life (EOL) is an important issue in oncology since it could degrade quality of life. CT near EOL is still poorly studied, with no dedicated study in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients. AIM: To analyze in GI cancer patients the factors associated with the use of CT within 3- and 1-month before patients' death. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive patients who died from a GI cancer in 10 French tertiary care hospitals during 2014 were included in this retrospective study. Clinical, demographical and biological data were collected and compared between patients receiving or not CT within 3- and 1-month before death. Variables associated with overall survival (OS) was also determined using of univariate and multivariate analyses with a Cox model. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-seven patients with a metastatic GI cancer were included in this study. Among them, 293 pts (67.0%) received CT within 3-months before death, and 121 pts (27.7%) received CT within 1-month before death. Patients receiving CT within 3-months before death were significantly younger (median age: 65.5 vs 72.8 years, p < 0.0001), with a better PS (PS 0 or 1: 53.9 vs 29.3%, p < 0.0001) and a higher albumin level (median: 32.8 vs 31.0 g/L, p = 0.048). Similar results were found for CT within 1 month before death. Palliative care team intervention was less frequent in patients who received CT in their last month of life (39.7% vs 51.3%, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, median OS from diagnosis was shorter in the group receiving CT within 1-month before death (HR = 0.59; 95% CI [0.48-0.74]). CONCLUSION: In GI-cancer patients, CT is administered within 3- and 1-month before death, in two and one third of patients, respectively. Patients receiving CT within 1-month before death, had more aggressive disease with poor OS. Palliative care team intervention was associated with less administration of CT in the last month of life. These results highlight the need to better anticipate the time to stop CT treatment in the end-of-life and the importance of an active collaboration between oncology and palliative care teams.

Targeting HGF/c-Met Axis Decreases Circulating Regulatory T Cells Accumulation in Gastric Cancer Patients.

Elucidating mechanisms involved in tumor-induced immunosuppression is of great interest since it could help to improve cancer immunotherapy efficacy. Here we show that Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), a pro-tumoral and proangiogenic factor, and its receptor c-Met are involved in regulatory T cells (Treg) accumulation in the peripheral blood of gastric cancer (GC) patients. We observed that c-Met is expressed on circulating monocytes from GC patients. The elevated expression on monocytes is associated with clinical parameters linked to an aggressive disease phenotype and correlates with a worse prognosis. Monocyte-derived dendritic cells from GC patients differentiated in the presence of HGF adopt a regulatory phenotype with a lower expression of co-stimulatory molecules, impaired maturation capacities, and an increased ability to produce interleukin-10 and to induce Treg differentiation in vitro. In the MEGA-ACCORD20-PRODIGE17 trial, GC patients received an anti-HGF antibody treatment (rilotumumab), which had been described to have an anti-angiogenic activity by decreasing proliferation of endothelial cells and tube formation. Rilotumumab decreased circulating Treg in GC patients. Thus, we identified that HGF indirectly triggers Treg accumulation via c-Met-expressing monocytes in the peripheral blood of GC patients. Our study provides arguments for potential alternative use of HGF/c-Met targeted therapies based on their immunomodulatory properties which could lead to the development of new therapeutic associations in cancer patients, for example with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Aflibercept in Combination With FOLFIRI as First-line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): A Phase II Study (FFCD 1302).

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) + aflibercept improves median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Our aim was to investigate efficacy and tolerability of this combination in the first line. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated documented mCRC received aflibercept plus FOLFIRI every 14 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity in an open, phase II single-arm, multicenter trial. The primary endpoint was the 6-month PFS rate. Secondary endpoints were OS and tolerability. A 2-step Simon design was used with H0: 55% and H1= 75%. Data were analyzed in intention to treat. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included, and 40 were analyzed (1 consent withdrawal) in 9 French centers between October 2014 and February 2017. The median age was 65 years (range, 46-81 years), 55% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, and 50% and 15% had RAS and BRAF mutations, respectively. Twenty-two (54.5%; 95% confidence interval, 38.9%-68.5%) patients were alive and non-progressive at 6 months. FOLFIRI + aflibercept was considered ineffective, resulting in the cessation of inclusions. The median follow-up was 34 months. The overall response rate was 55%, and the disease control rate was 80%. The median duration of treatment was 5.3 months; the median PFS and OS were 8.2 and 18.6 months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal (47.5%) and vascular (32.5%). Of the patients, 87.5% had at least 1 dose modification. CONCLUSION: Although the primary objective was not met, first-line FOLFIRI + aflibercept for mCRC leads to median PFS and OS close to those reported with classical doublet and targeted agents, but with significant toxicities needing dose reduction.

Feasibility of Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Combination Chemotherapy Without Central Venous Access Device in Patients With Stage III Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: 5-Fluorouracil and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is a standard adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer (CC). Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine, and administration of oxaliplatin does not necessarily require the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). We evaluated the feasibility of XELOX without a CVAD as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III CC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied prospectively collected data from patients with stage III CC treated with XELOX in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy French trial. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with a CVAD and those with peripheral venous access (PVA), including patients who had and had not had a CVAD at the first cycle of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy without a CVAD was considered feasible if the patient received all cycles of adjuvant therapy without it. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were included: 86 (43%) in the PVA group and 116 (57%) in the CVAD group. Of the 85 patients in the PVA group (1 patient was not treated), 69 (81.2%) did not require the insertion of a CVAD. However, 16 (18.8%) required CVAD insertion owing to systematic delay of the initially planned CVAD before the second cycle of chemotherapy in 7, complications related to PVA usage in 5, a switch to the modified FOLFOX6 regimen in 2, and other reasons in 2. The oxaliplatin dose was similar in both groups regardless of the chemotherapy duration. XELOX without a CVAD was feasible for 81.2% of the patients for whom a CVAD had not been planned before chemotherapy and for 88.4% of patients for whom chemotherapy was planned without the use of a CVAD. CONCLUSION: XELOX chemotherapy without a CVAD is a feasible approach for treating patients with stage III CC in the adjuvant setting.