Next-Generation Sequencing of Circulating Tumor DNA Can Optimize Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer after Progression on anti-EGFR Therapy: Time to Rethink Our Approach.

BACKGROUND: Management of Ras wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) patients upon disease progression after the successful use of targeted treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and backbone chemotherapy remains a clinical challenge. SUMMARY: Development of treatment resistance with prevalence of preexisting RAS mutated clones, RAS mutation conversion, truncation of extracellular receptor domains as well as HER2 and MET amplification are molecular events that can be difficult to follow without the use of sophisticated laboratory techniques. The clinical hurdle of re-biopsy and tumor heterogeneity can be overcome by the implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and identify druggable mutations or recovery of RAS-wildness. In this opinion paper, we summarize with critical thinking the clinical approach to be followed after the failure of first-line treatment in Ras wild-type CRC tumors with the use of NGS. Rechallenge with anti-EGFR inhibitors, in case of persistent or recovery of RAS-wildness, and targeted approach of specific mutations (BRAF inhibitors), amplifications (anti-Her2 treatment), or fusion proteins (NTRK inhibitors) can by guided by the use of NGS. The use of NGS platforms for serial analysis of ctDNA is an important step to better understand the molecular landscape of metastatic CRC and guide clinical decisions. KEY MESSAGES: NGS should be considered a mainstay in clinical practice for the management of CRC patients and health authorities should consider reimbursing its use in the appropriate clinical settings.

Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies: How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth.

INTRODUCTION: Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak. METHODS: We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies. RESULTS: By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally.