Relation of cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and early tumor shrinkage in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the randomized phase 3 trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab-induced skin toxicity (Cet-ST) is positively associated with outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Besides its predictive relevance for targeted therapy, we investigated its prognostic impact with early tumor shrinkage (ETS) ≥20%, another on-treatment surrogate for clinical outcome in FIRE-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Retrospective data on Cet-ST that occurred during cycles 1-3 of treatment were correlated with efficacy endpoints, including ETS. To control for guarantee-time bias, only patients who had completed three or more treatment cycles were considered. RESULTS: Of 199 patients treated with FOLFIRI/Cet, 181 (91.0%) completed three or more treatment cycles. A significant survival benefit of FOLFIRI/Cet over FOLFIRI/Bev was only evident in patients developing Cet-ST grade 2-3 [41.0 versus 26.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.87; P < 0.001] compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.67-1.20; P = 0.48). Regarding prognosis, Cet-ST grade 2-3 (n = 75; 41.4%), compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (n = 106; 58.6%), was associated with prolonged overall survival (OS; HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91; P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, both Cet-ST (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.87; P = 0.003) and ETS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.74; P < 0.0001) were independently prognostic for OS. Absence of both Cet-ST grade ≥2 and ETS identified a subgroup of patients with very poor prognosis (median OS 15.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI was associated with superior OS compared with FOLFIRI/Bev only in patients developing Cet-ST grade ≥2. Regarding prognostic relevance, both Cet-ST and ETS were independent and early predictors of survival. The present analysis supports that a combined evaluation of on-treatment parameters such as Cet-ST and ETS may help to guide treatment of mCRC.

Bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: updated results from the S-AVANT phase III study by the GERCOR Group.

BACKGROUND: The bevacizumab-Avastin® adjuVANT (AVANT) study did not meet its primary end point of improving disease-free survival (DFS) with the addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC). We report here the long-term survival results (S-AVANT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with curatively resected stage III CC were randomly assigned to FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, or XELOX-bevacizumab. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients were randomized: FOLFOX4: n = 955, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab: n = 960, XELOX-bevacizumab: n = 952. With a median of 6.73 years follow-up (interquartile range 5.51-10.54), 672 patients died, of whom 198 (20.7%), 250 (26.0%), and 224 (23.5%) were in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively. The 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 74.6%, 67.2%, and 69.9%, (P = 0.003) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 73.2%, 68.5%, and 71.0% (P = 0.174), respectively. OS and DFS hazard ratios were 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.55; P = 0.008] and 1.16 (95% CI 0.99-1.37; P = 0.063) for FOLFOX4-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4 and 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.39; P = 0.147) and 1.1 (95% CI 0.93-1.29; P = 0.269) for XELOX-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4, respectively. CC-related deaths (n = 542) occurred in 157 (79.3%) patients receiving FOLFOX4, 205 (82.0%) receiving FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and 180 (80.4%) receiving XELOX-bevacizumab (P = 0.764), while non-CC-related deaths occurred in 41 (20.7%), 45 (18.0%), and 44 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cardiovascular-related and sudden deaths during treatment or follow-up were reported in 13 (6.6%), 17 (6.8%), and 14 (6.3%) patients, in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizuamb, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively (P = 0.789). Treatment arm, sex, age, histological differentiation, performance status, T/ N stages, and localization of primary tumor were independent prognostic factors of OS in stage III. CONCLUSIONS: S-AVANT confirms the initial AVANT report. No benefit of the bevacizumab addition to FOLFOX4 adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III CC was observed in terms of DFS with a negative effect in OS, without increase in non-CC related deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: NCT00112918.

Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.

Regorafenib therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: markers and outcome in an actual clinical setting.

The oral multikinase inhibitor regorafenib had beneficial effects in randomized clinical phase III trials compared to the placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progressed on standard therapies. The factors which influence regorafenib response and therapy sequence during treatment history are still highly discussed, and herein we analyzed the therapy algorithm, outcome and clinical markers following regorafenib application in a single center register study. Clinical data for 48 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were collected from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2016. Treatment effects according to various patient and tumor characteristics were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. The 48 patients comprised 14 (29%) females and 34 (71%) males, with mean age 64.2±9 and ECOG 0-1. Progression free survival under regorafenib therapy was 2.9 months (quartiles 2.2; 4.4) and the overall response rate was 2 (4%) and disease control rate was 19 (40%). Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were investigated under regorafenib in the chemotherapy regimen given immediately before and afterthis treatment. Variables including tumor localization, Ras status, CEA and CA 19-9 plasma levels were analyzed for their impact on PFS, and the regorafenib-related adverse events were also observed. Our study confirms the efficacy of regorafenib in a real-life setting. We established that response rate and PFS in regorafenib treatment are independent of tumor localization, Ras status or biomarkers such as CEA and CA 19-9. Trifluridin/tripacil application or re-induction of chemotherapy +/- target therapy was effective following regorafenib therapy.

CEA response is associated with tumor response and survival in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type and extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

BACKGROUND: To examine the relation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response with tumor response and survival in patients with (K)RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the FIRE-3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CEA response assessed as the percentage of CEA decrease from baseline to nadir was evaluated for its association with tumor response and survival. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed an optimal cut-off value of 75% using the maximum of sensitivity and specificity for CEA response to discriminate CEA responders from non-responders. In addition, the time to CEA nadir was calculated. RESULTS: Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 472 were eligible for analysis of CEA (cetuximab arm: 230 and bevacizumab arm: 242). Maximal relative CEA decrease (%) significantly (P = 0.003) differed between the cetuximab arm (median 83.0%; IQR 40.9%-94.7%) and the bevacizumab arm (median 72.3%; IQR 26.3%-91.0%). In a longitudinal analysis, the CEA decrease occurred faster in the cetuximab arm and was greater than in the bevacizumab arm at all evaluated time points until 56 weeks after treatment start. CEA nadir occurred after 3.3 months (cetuximab arm) and 3.5 months (bevacizumab arm), (P = 0.49). In the cetuximab arm, CEA responders showed a significantly longer progression-free survival [11.8 versus 7.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.53; 95% Cl, 1.15-2.04; P = 0.004] and longer overall survival (36.6 versus 21.3 months; HR 1.73; 95% Cl, 1.24-2.43; P = 0.001) than CEA non-responders. Analysis of extended RAS wild-type patients revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In the FIRE-3 trial, CEA decrease was significantly faster and greater in the cetuximab arm than in the bevacizumab arm and correlated with the prolonged survival observed in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433927 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AIO KRK0306 FIRE-3.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: final results from the X-ACT trial with analysis by age and preliminary evidence of a pharmacodynamic marker of efficacy.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter randomized trial compared oral capecitabine with bolus i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to 24 weeks of capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks or 5-FU/FA (Mayo Clinic regimen). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population received capecitabine (n = 1004) or 5-FU/FA (n = 983). With a median follow-up of 6.9 years, capecitabine was at least equivalent to 5-FU/FA in terms of DFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.01] and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.01); the 95% CI upper limits were significantly less than the predefined noninferiority margins of 1.20 (P < 0.0001) and 1.14 (P < 0.001), respectively. This pattern was maintained in all subgroups, including patients aged ≥ 70 years. Preplanned multivariate analyses showed that capecitabine had statistically significant beneficial effects on DFS (P = 0.021) and OS (P = 0.020) versus 5-FU/FA. A post hoc analysis suggested that the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome may be associated with better outcomes in capecitabine recipients. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to bolus 5-FU/FA as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage III colon cancer with efficacy benefits maintained at 5 years and in older patients.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-subgroup analysis of patients with KRAS: mutated tumours in the randomised German AIO study KRK-0306.

BACKGROUND: The AIO KRK-0306 trial compares the efficacy of infusional 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In October 2008, an amendment terminated the inclusion of patients with KRAS-mutated tumours. This subgroup of patients is evaluated in the present analysis, while the study is ongoing for patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to FOLFIRI (Tournigand regimen) every 2 weeks plus cetuximab (400 mg/m2 day 1, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly=arm A) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks=arm B). Among 336 randomised patients, KRAS mutation was demonstrated in 100 assessable patients. The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: ORR was 44% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 59%] in arm A versus 48% (95% CI, 33% to 62%) in arm B. Progression-free survival was 7.5 versus 8.9 months (hazard ratio: 1.0) and overall survival was 22.7 versus 18.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.86) in arms A versus B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first head to head comparison of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the present evaluation of patients with KRAS-mutated tumours, neither strategy demonstrated a clearly superior outcome.

ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results.

BACKGROUND: We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85-1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83-1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Estimating prognosis and palliation based on tumour marker CA 19-9 and quality of life indicators in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the prognostic value of quality of life (QOL) relative to tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, and the role of CA 19-9 in estimating palliation in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks in a phase III trial (SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001). Patients scored QOL indicators at baseline, and before each administration of chemotherapy (weekly or bi-weekly) for 24 weeks or until progression. Prognostic factors were investigated by Cox models, QOL during chemotherapy by mixed-effect models. RESULTS: Patient-rated pain (P<0.02) and tiredness (P<0.03) were independent predictors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9 (P<0.001). Baseline CA 19-9 did not predict QOL during chemotherapy, except for a marginal effect on pain (P<0.05). Mean changes in physical domains across the whole observation period were marginally correlated with the maximum CA 19-9 decrease. Patients in a better health status reported the most improvement in QOL within 20 days before maximum CA 19-9 decrease. They indicated substantially less pain and better physical well-being, already, early on during chemotherapy with a maximum CA 19-9 decrease of ≥50% vs <50%. CONCLUSION: In advanced pancreatic cancer, pain and tiredness are independent prognostic factors for survival, although less prognostic than CA 19-9. Quality of life improves before best CA 19-9 response but the maximum CA 19-9 decrease has no impact on subsequent QOL. To estimate palliation by chemotherapy, patient's perception needs to be taken into account.

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 10th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2008.

This article summarizes the expert discussion on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 10th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, June 2008. A multidisciplinary approach to a patient with HCC is essential, to guarantee optimal diagnosis and staging, planning of surgical options and selection of embolisation strategies or systemic therapies. In many patients, the underlying cirrhosis represents a challenge and determines therapeutic options. There is now robust evidence in favour of systemic therapy with sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC with preserved liver function. Those involved in the care for patients with HCC should be encouraged to participate in well-designed clinical trials, to increase evidence-based knowledge and to make further progress.

Relevance of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen for first-line treatment against metastatic colorectal cancer with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

PURPOSE: Increased baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum level is associated with inferior overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, limited data exist on its predictive relevance for targeted therapies. Therefore, we analysed its relevance in FIRE-3, a randomised phase III study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumour (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Herein, the impact of CEA on patient outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 356 (89.0%) were evaluable for CEA. High CEA (>10 ng/ml; N = 237) compared to low CEA (≤10 ng/ml; N = 119) was associated with shorter OS in the FOLFIRI/Bev arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50; P = 0.036), while no significant OS difference was observed in the FOLFIRI/Cet arm (HR = 1.07; P = 0.74). In patients with high CEA, FOLFIRI/Cet compared to FOLFIRI/Bev showed a greater OS benefit (HR = 0.56; P < 0.001) than in patients with low CEA (HR = 0.78; P = 0.30). Furthermore, FOLFIRI/Cet exhibited significantly superior objective response rate in patients with high CEA (odds ratio = 2.21; P = 0.006) in contrast to patients with low CEA (odds ratio = 0.90; P = 0.85). CONCLUSION: In patients with RAS-WT mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI/Bev, elevated CEA was associated with inferior survival in the bevacizumab arm, while this was not the case when cetuximab was applied. Comparison of OS and objective response rate according to treatment arms indicated that cetuximab was greatly superior to bevacizumab in patients with elevated CEA, while this effect was markedly lower and lost statistical significance in patients with low CEA.

An open-label, single-arm study assessing safety and efficacy of panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A phase 3 study demonstrated that panitumumab, a human monoclonal anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody, significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label extension study evaluated panitumumab monotherapy in BSC patients with radiographically documented disease progression in the phase 3 study. Patients received panitumumab 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary end point was safety; efficacy was also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to the BSC arm of the phase 3 study received >/=1 panitumumab dose in this extension study. Panitumumab was well tolerated. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were skin toxic effects. Three (2%) patients had a grade 4 treatment-related adverse event. There were no infusion reactions. One (0.6%) patient had a complete response; 19 (11%) patients had a partial response; and 58 (33%) patients had stable disease. Median progression-free survival time was 9.4 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.0-13.4) weeks. Median overall survival time was 6.3 (95% CI: 5.1-6.8) months. Anti-panitumumab antibodies were detected in 3 (4.2%) of 71 patients with a post-baseline sample. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are comparable to those from the phase 3 study and support panitumumab monotherapy for chemorefractory colorectal cancer.

The diagnosis and management of rectal cancer: expert discussion and recommendations derived from the 9th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2007.

Knowledge of the biology and management of rectal cancer continues to improve. A multidisciplinary approach to a patient with rectal cancer by an experienced expert team is mandatory, to assure optimal diagnosis and staging, surgery, selection of the appropriate neo-adjuvant and adjuvant strategy and chemotherapeutic management. Moreover, optimal symptom management also requires a dedicated team of health care professionals. The introduction of total mesorectal excision has been associated with a decrease in the rate of local failure after surgery. High quality surgery and the achievement of pathological measures of quality are a prerequisite to adequate locoregional control. There are now randomized data in favour of chemoradiotherapy or short course radiotherapy in the preoperative setting. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is more beneficial and has less toxicity for patients with resectable rectal cancer than postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Furthermore chemoradiotherapy leads also to downsizing of locally advanced rectal cancer. New strategies that decrease the likelihood of distant metastases after initial treatment need be developed with high priority. Those involved in the care for patients with rectal cancer should be encouraged to participate in well-designed clinical trials, to increase the evidence-based knowledge and to make further progress. Health care workers involved in the care of rectal cancer patients should be encouraged to adopt quality control processes leading to increased expertise.

Evaluation of survival across several treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of the FIRE-3 trial (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: We explored the impacts of sequential application of various treatment lines on survival kinetics. Therefore, differences in overall survival (OS) observed in FIRE-3 were investigated in the context of time and exposure to applied treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS analyses (stratified by treatment with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were performed according to time intervals as well as using a Cox model to define changes of hazard ratio (HR) over time. RESULTS: The fraction of patients with systemic treatment and time on treatment markedly decreases over treatment lines and time. OS evaluation by a Cox model indicated a trend towards a non-proportional hazard between treatment arms (P = 0.12/P = 0.09 for KRAS-intention-to-treat (ITT)/all-RAS wild-type populations, respectively). To improve the fit of the model, a change-point (point of curve separation) was estimated at 22.6 months (day 687) after randomisation. The HR between the two arms before 22.6 months was not significantly different from one. However, markedly different survival kinetics in favour of the cetuximab arm were apparent after the change-point (KRAS-ITT: P = 0.0018; HR, 0.60 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.83] and RAS: P = 0.0006; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.75]). CONCLUSION: The differences in OS favouring the cetuximab arm become apparent about 22.6 months after randomisation, indicating that only those patients who survive 22.6 months after randomisation benefit from the superiority of the cetuximab arm. When OS curves separate, only few patients receive active systemic treatment in short courses, suggesting that earlier treatment effects are responsible for later kinetics of survival curves.

Impact of BRAF and RAS mutations on first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab: analysis of the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

BACKGROUND: RAS and BRAF mutations have been identified as negative prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer. Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with RAS-mutant tumours needs to be further evaluated. Whether to treat patients with BRAF-mutant tumours with either bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies remains unclear. METHODS: Patients treated within the FIRE-3 trial were retrospectively tested for BRAF and RAS mutations using formalin fixated paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumour material applying pyrosequencing for KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 mutations as far as for BRAF mutations. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimation and differences were expressed using the log-rank test. Overall response rate (ORR) was compared using Fisher's exact test. Data from a central independent radiological response evaluation were used to calculate early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR). RESULTS: Overall, 188 patients with RAS-mutant tumours and 48 with BRAF-mutant tumours were identified. In BRAF-mutant patients, ORR was numerically higher in the cetuximab versus the bevacizumab arm (52% versus 40%), while comparable results were achieved for progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, p = 0.56) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.79, p = 0.45). RAS mutation was associated with a trend towards lower ORR (37% versus 50.5%, p = 0.11) and shorter PFS (7.4 versus 9.7 months; HR 1.25; p = 0.14) in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab, but OS was comparable (19.1 versus 20.1 months; HR 1.05; p = 0.73), respectively. ETS identified subgroups sensitive to cetuximab-based treatment in both BRAF- (9/17) and RAS-mutant (18/48) patients and was associated with significantly longer OS. DpR was comparable between both treatment arms in RAS- and BRAF-mutant patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In BRAF- and RAS-mutant patients, cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based treatment had comparable survival times. ETS represents an early parameter associated with the benefit from anti-EGFR, while this was not the case with vascular endothelial growth factor A blockade.

HER 2/neu protein expression in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data exist about the prevalence of HER-2/neu overexpression in colorectal cancer ranging from 0 to 83 %. In our study we tried to clarify the extent of expression and its relationship to clinicopathological parameters. METHODS: This study involved 77 specimens of malignant colorectal cancer lesions of surgically resected patients. HER-2/neu immunohistochemistry was performed using the Hercep-Test Kit. RESULTS: Out of 77 specimens, 56 were Her-2/neu negative (70%), 20 (26%) showed a barely immunostaining (1+), only 1 (1%) was moderately (2+) and 2 (3%) were strongly positive (3+). Her-2/neu staining (moderately and strongly positive) was only detected in primary tumours of patients with confirmed metastases. No relationship was found between membranous HER-2 expression and patients' gender or differentiation. The median survival time of patients with positive HER-2/neu immunostaining was 21 versus 39 months in patients without HER-2/neu expression (p = 0.088). CONCLUSION: The c-erbB protein expression was observed in colorectal cancer but rarely in the therapeutic range (2+ and 3+). There was no significant association with tumour grade, gender, localization of the primary tumour or survival. These data indicate that c-erbB-2 is unlikely to play a major role in the therapeutic management of colorectal cancer.

New screening system for selection of anticancer drugs for treatment of human colorectal cancer.

We report an evaluation of a new radiometric technique (BACTEC assay) as a potential screening system for cytotoxic compounds with activity against cancer of the large bowel. Exponentially growing cells of nine different human colorectal cancer cell lines were exposed to a variety of standard anticancer agents with or without documented clinical activity. Each drug was tested in a series of 1-h and continuous exposure studies utilizing three different concentrations. Antineoplastic effects were analyzed as a function of in vivo achievable serum concentrations, namely by a ratio of the concentration required to decrease cell growth to 10% of control to one-tenth of the peak plasma concentration in humans. Our results suggest that COLO 320DM, OM-1, and Ht-29 cells manifest responsiveness to anticancer drugs consistent with that noted in clinical studies with most agents tested. The radiometric technique provides several advantages for a screening system, including reproducibility, a good agreement with the cloning assay, speed, and low costs. The combined use of the BACTEC technique and the three colon cancer cell lines could prove useful as a screen for new anticancer compounds with activity in colorectal cancer.