Management of BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: a review of treatment options and evidence-based guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, despite recent improvements in cancer management. CRC, like many malignancies, is a heterogeneous disease, with subtypes characterized by genetic alterations. One common mutation in CRC is in the BRAF gene (most commonly V600E substitution). This occurs in ∼10% of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) and is a marker of poor prognosis. DESIGN: Herein, we review the clinical and translational literature on the role of the BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of mCRC, its mechanisms as a prognostic marker, and its potential utility as a predictive marker of treatment response. We then summarize the current evidence-based recommendations for management of BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, with a focus on recent clinical research advances in this setting. RESULTS: The current standard therapies for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC are chemotherapy with bevacizumab as well as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with a good performance status. Combination strategies involving mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade have shown promising results for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. The Binimetinib, Encorafenib, And Cetuximab cOmbiNed to treat BRAF-mutant ColoRectal Cancer (BEACON CRC) study represents the largest study in this population to date and has given strong clinical evidence to support BRAF and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition with the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC has evolved rapidly over the last several years. Recently, combination strategies involving MAPK pathway blockade have shown promising results in BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, and other potential targets continue to be explored. In addition, a greater understanding of the role of BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of CRC should also continue to fuel advances in the management of patients with mCRC harboring this genetic aberration.

Distinct genomic landscapes of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma depending on PD-L1 expression identify mutations in RAS-MAPK pathway and TP53 as potential predictors of immunotherapy efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of molecular alterations on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) is not well studied in gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GEAs). We aimed to characterize genomic features of tumors with different CPSs in GEAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Genomic alterations of 2518 GEAs were compared in three groups (PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, high; CPS = 1-9, intermediate; CPS < 1, low) using next-generation sequencing. We assessed the impact of gene mutations on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and tumor immune environment based on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. RESULTS: High, intermediate, and low CPSs were seen in 18%, 54% and 28% of GEAs, respectively. PD-L1 positivity was less prevalent in women and in tissues derived from metastatic sites. PD-L1 CPS was positively associated with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high, but independent of tumor mutation burden distribution. Tumors with mutations in KRAS, TP53, and RAS-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway were associated with higher PD-L1 CPSs in the mismatch repair proficiency and microsatellite stability (pMMR&MSS) subgroup. Patients with RAS-MAPK pathway alterations had longer overall survival (OS) from ICIs compared to wildtype (WT) patients [27 versus 13 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.7, P = 0.016] and a similar trend was observed in the MSS subgroup (P = 0.11). In contrast, patients with TP53 mutations had worse OS from ICIs compared to TP53-WT patients in the MSS subgroup (5 versus 21 months, HR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.24-4.61, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to investigate the distinct genomic landscapes of GEAs with different PD-L1 CPSs. Our data may provide novel insights for patient selection using mutations in TP53 and RAS-MAPK pathway and for the development of rational combination immunotherapies in GEAs.

Evaluation of the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer: pooled analysis of 6501 patients treated with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin in the ACCENT database.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or FLOX) have been the standard of care for patients with resected colon cancer. Herein we examine the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer who received this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the ACCENT database was used to compare the outcomes in older (1998-2003) and newer (2004-2009) treatment eras for patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX. The outcomes were compared between the two groups by the multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for age, sex, performance score, T stage, N stage, tumor sidedness, and histological grade. RESULTS: A total of 6501 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX in six randomized trials were included in the analysis. Patients enrolled in the new era group experienced statistically significant improvement in time to recurrence [3-year rate, 76.1% versus 73.0%; adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92), P = 0.0008], disease-free survival (DFS) [3-year rate, 74.7% versus 72.3%; HRadj = 0.88 (0.79-0.98), P = 0.024], survival after recurrence (SAR) [median time, 27.0 versus 17.7 months; HRadj = 0.65 (0.57-0.74), P < 0.0001], and overall survival (OS) [5-year rate, 80.9% versus 75.7%; HRadj = 0.78 (0.69-0.88), P < 0.0001]. The improved outcomes remained in patients diagnosed at 45 years of age or older, low-risk patients (T1-3 and N1), left colon, mismatch repair proficient (pMMR), BRAF, and KRAS wild-type tumors. CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes were observed in patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in clinical trials who received adjuvant FOLFOX/FLOX therapy in 2004 or later compared with patients in the older era. Prolonged SAR calls for revalidation of 3-year DFS as the surrogate endpoint of OS in adjuvant clinical trials and reevaluation of optimal follow-up of OS to confirm the trial findings based on the DFS endpoints. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBERS: NCT00079274; NCT00096278; NCT00004931; NCT00275210; NCT00265811; NCT00112918.

Prognosis of microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency stage III colon cancer patients after disease recurrence following adjuvant treatment: results of an ACCENT pooled analysis of seven studies.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to have a poor prognosis. Frequent co-occurrence of MSI/dMMR and BRAFV600E complicates the association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer (CC) from seven adjuvant studies with available data for disease recurrence and MMR and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary end point was survival after recurrence (SAR). Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, gender, performance status, T stage, N stage, primary tumor location, grade, KRAS status, and timing of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI/dMMR tumors had significantly longer SAR than did patients with microsatellite stable/proficient MMR tumors (MSS/pMMR) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.69-0.98; P = 0.029). This finding remained when looking at patients treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimens only (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = 0.048). Same trends for SAR were observed when analyzing MSI/dMMR versus MSS/pMMR tumor subgroups lacking BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.84; P = 0.10) or those harboring BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.88; P = 0.43), without reaching statistical significance. Furthermore, SAR was significantly shorter in tumors with BRAFV600E versus those lacking this mutation (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < 0.0001), even in the subgroup of MSI/dMMR tumors (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; P < 0.0001). Other factors associated with a shorter SAR were as follows: older age, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In stage III CC patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy, and before the era of immunotherapy, the MSI/dMMR phenotype was associated with a better SAR compared with MSS/pMMR. BRAFV600E mutation was a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: NCT00079274, NCT00265811, NCT00004931, NCT00004931, NCT00026273, NCT00096278, NCT00112918.

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis: RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study.

Background: : Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods: Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results: RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions: In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01183780.

The hard road to data interpretation: 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer?

Background: Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods: Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results: There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either 'fighters' or 'fatalists', and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as 'fighters' would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions: The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus guidelines for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was published in 2016, identifying both a more strategic approach to the administration of the available systemic therapy choices, and a greater emphasis on the use of ablative techniques, including surgery. At the 2016 ESMO Asia Meeting, in December 2016, it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting, endorsed by both ESMO and JSMO, immediately after the JSMO 2017 Annual Meeting. The aim was to adapt the ESMO consensus guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences relating to the toxicity as well as other aspects of certain systemic treatments in patients of Asian ethnicity. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC identified by the Presidents of the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), Korea (Korean Association for Clinical Oncology), Malaysia (Malaysian Oncological Society), Singapore (Singapore Society of Oncology) and Taiwan (Taiwan Oncology Society). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

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.

Survival following early-stage colon cancer: an ACCENT-based comparison of patients versus a matched international general population†.

BACKGROUND: Post-treatment survival experience of early colon cancer (CC) patients is well described in the literature, which states that cure is probable for some patients. However, comparisons of treated patients' survival versus that expected from a matched general population (MGP) are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 32 745 patients from 25 randomized adjuvant trials conducted from 1977 to 2012 in 41 countries were pooled. Observed long-term survival of these patients was compared with expected survival matched on sex, age, country, and year, both overall and by stage (II and III), sex, treatment [surgery, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 5-FU + oxaliplatin], age (<70 and 70+), enrollment year (pre/post 2000), and recurrence (yes/no). Comparisons were made at randomization and repeated conditional on survival to 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. CC and MGP equivalence was tested, and observed Kaplan-Meier survival rates compared with expected MGP rates 3 years out from each landmark. Analyses were also repeated in patients without recurrence. RESULTS: Within most cohorts, long-term survival of CC patients remained statistically worse than the MGP, though conditional survival generally improved over time. Among those surviving 5 years, stage II, oxaliplatin-treated, elderly, and recurrence-free patients achieved subsequent 3-year survival rates within 5% of the MGP, with recurrence-free patients achieving equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional on survival to 5 years, long-term survival of most CC patients on clinical trials remains modestly poorer than an MGP, but achieves MGP levels in some subgroups. These findings emphasize the need for access to quality care and improved treatment and follow-up strategies.

Improved time to treatment failure with an intermittent oxaliplatin strategy: results of CONcePT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin is an integral component of colorectal cancer treatment, but its use is limited by neurotoxicity. The Combined Oxaliplatin Neurotoxicity Prevention Trial (CONcePT) tested intermittent oxaliplatin (IO) administration and the use of concurrent calcium and magnesium salts (Ca/Mg), two modifications intended to reduce neurotoxicity and extend the duration of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this trial involving double randomization, 140 patients were randomized to receive modified FOLFOX7 plus bevacizumab with IO (eight-cycle blocks of oxaliplatin treatment) versus continuous oxaliplatin (CO); and Ca/Mg versus placebo (pre- and postoxaliplatin infusion). The primary end point was time-to-treatment failure (TTF). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were entered and treated up to the point of early study termination due to concerns by the data-monitoring committee (DMC) that Ca/Mg adversely affected tumor response. Tumor response was not a study end point. Given DMC concerns, an additional independent, blinded radiology review of all images showed no adverse effect of treatment schedule or Ca/Mg on response by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. The IO schedule was superior to CO [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.581, P = 0.0026] for both TTF and time-to-tumor progression (TTP) (HR = 0.533, P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: An IO dosing schedule had a significant benefit on both TTF and TTP versus CO dosing in this trial despite the very attenuated sample. There was no effect of Ca/Mg on response.

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related). CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC.

BACKGROUND: In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator's choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. RESULTS: Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

The diagnosis and management of gastric cancer: expert discussion and recommendations from the 12th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2010.

Well-recognized experts in the field of gastric cancer discussed during the 12th European Society Medical Oncology (ESMO)/World Congress Gastrointestinal Cancer (WCGIC) in Barcelona many important and controversial topics on the diagnosis and management of patients with gastric cancer. This article summarizes the recommendations and expert opinion on gastric cancer. It discusses and reflects on the regional differences in the incidence and care of gastric cancer, the definition of gastro-esophageal junction and its implication for treatment strategies and presents the latest recommendations in the staging and treatment of primary and metastatic gastric cancer. Recognition is given to the need for larger and well-designed clinical trials to answer many open questions.

Management of adverse events from the treatment of encorafenib plus cetuximab for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: insights from the BEACON CRC study.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.

Molecular markers and biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 11th ESMO/World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2009.

The article summarizes the expert discussion and recommendations on the use of molecular markers and of biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as well as a proposed treatment decision strategy for mCRC treatment. The meeting was conducted during the 11th ESMO/World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona in June 2009. The manuscript describes the outcome of an expert discussion leading to an expert recommendation. The increasing knowledge on clinical and molecular markers and the availability of biological targeted therapies have major implications in the optimal management in mCRC.

Impact of quality of life parameters and coping strategies on postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting.

To assess whether prechemotherapy quality of life (QoL) factors and certain coping strategies are associated with postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV). A total of 43 chemotherapy-naïve patients scheduled to receive anti-emetic prophylaxis were enrolled in this study. QoL parameters were measured by a modified EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-30). In addition, questions regarding active or passive coping strategies were asked 1 day before chemotherapy. Prechemotherapy QoL factors, coping strategies as well as other patient, disease and treatment variables were compared between the groups of patients with or without PCNV. The univariate analysis identified four QoL parameters, 'tiredness', 'impairment of daily life by pain', 'sensation of abdominal pressure and fullness' and 'impairment of social activities' as associated with PCNV. No association was found between coping strategies and PCNV. In the multivariate analysis, the factors 'impairment of social activities' and 'sensation of abdominal pressure and fullness' remained significant. Specific pretreatment QoL parameters are associated with the risk to develop PCNV. Thus, in addition to other established risk factors for PCNV, patients should be screened for these QoL factors in order to improve the control of PCNV and facilitate the selection of appropriate, individualised anti-emetic prophylaxes.

Radiological imaging markers predicting clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma treated with regorafenib: post hoc analysis of the CORRECT phase III trial (RadioCORRECT study).

OBJECTIVE: To identify imaging markers predicting clinical outcomes to regorafenib in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). METHODS: The RadioCORRECT study is a post hoc analysis of a cohort of patients with mCRC treated within the phase III placebo-controlled CORRECT trial of regorafenib. Baseline and week 8 contrast-enhanced CT were used to assess response by RECIST 1.1, changes in the sum of target lesion diameters (ΔSTL), lung metastases cavitation and liver metastases density. Primary and secondary objectives were to develop ex novo univariable and multivariable models to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. RESULTS: 202 patients were enrolled, 134 (66.3%) treated with regorafenib and 68 (33.7%) with placebo. In the univariate analysis, PFS predictors were lung metastases cavitation at baseline (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92, p=0.03) and at week 8 (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93, p=0.02). Baseline cavitation (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.66, p=0.007), RECIST 1.1 (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4, p <0.0001) and ΔSTL (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27, p=0.002) predicted OS. We found an increase of 9% of diameter as the best threshold for discriminating OS (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.34, p <0.001). In the multivariate analysis, baseline and week 8 cavitation remained significant PFS predictors. Baseline cavitation, RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL remained predictors of OS in exploratory multivariable models. Assessment of liver metastases density did not predict clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL predict favourable outcome to regorafenib. In contrast to liver metastases density that failed to be a predictor, lung metastases cavitation represents a novel radiological marker of favourable outcome that deserves consideration.