Rechallenge with Anti-EGFR Treatment in RAS/BRAF wt Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) in Real Clinical Practice: Experience of the GITuD Group.

BACKGROUND: There are few third- and fourth-line therapeutic options for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) mCRC previously treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) (first-line) and relapsed after a good response, retreatment with anti-EGFR (rechallenge) emerges as a therapeutic alternative. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to show the activity and safety of anti-EGFR rechallenge in RAS/BRAF wt mCRC in real-world practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study (six hospitals of the Galician Group of Research in Digestive Tumors) was conducted. Adult patients with RAS/BRAF wt mCRC, evaluated by liquid biopsy, were included. They received anti-EGFR rechallenge (cetuximab, panitumumab) as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy, in third- or subsequent lines. Efficacy (overall response rate [ORR], disease control rate [DCR], overall survival [OS], and progression-free survival [PFS]) and safety (incidence of adverse events [AEs]) were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were analyzed. Rechallenge (median 6 cycles [range 1-27], mainly cetuximab [80.7%]), started at a median anti-EGFR-free time of 18.4 months (1.7-37.5 months) after two (38.7%) or more (61.3%) lines of treatment; 64.5% of patients received a full dose. Median OS and PFS were 9.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.2-11.4) and 2.6 months (95% CI 1.7-3.4), respectively. ORR was 10%, and DCR was 30%. The most common AEs were diarrhea (35.5%), anemia (29%), emesis (6.4%), and neutropenia (6.4%); < 5% grade ≥ 3; 48.4% of patients reported anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity (grade > 1). Hypomagnesemia required supplements in 29% of patients. Dose delays (≥ 3 days) and reduction (≥ 20%) were reported in 11 (35.5%) and seven patients (22.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In RAS/BRAF wt mCRC patients, an anti-EGFR rechallenge provides a feasible therapeutic option with clinical benefit (survival) and a manageable safety profile.

Is there a preferred platinum and fluoropyrimidine regimen for advanced HER2-negative esophagogastric adenocarcinoma? Insights from 1293 patients in AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric cancer, either in combination with targeted therapies or as a comparator in clinical trials, is uncertain. The subtle yet crucial differences in platinum-based regimens' safety and synergy with combination treatments need consideration. METHODS: We analyzed cases from the AGAMENON-SEOM Spanish registry of HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with platinum and fluoropyrimidine from 2008 to 2021. This study focused exclusively on patients receiving one of the four regimens: FOLFOX (5-FU and oxaliplatin), CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), CP (capecitabine and cisplatin) and FP (5-FU and cisplatin). The aim was to determine the most effective and tolerable platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen and to identify any prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 1293 patients, 36% received either FOLFOX (n = 468) or CAPOX (n = 466), 20% CP (n = 252), and 8% FP (n = 107). FOLFOX significantly increased PFS (progression free survival) compared to CP, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.009). The duration of treatment was similar across all groups. Survival outcomes among regimens were similar, but analysis revealed worse ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status), > 2 metastatic sites, bone metastases, hypoalbuminemia, higher NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and CP regimen as predictors of poor PFS. Fatigue was common in all treatments, with the highest incidence in FOLFOX (77%), followed by FP (72%), CAPOX (68%), and CP (60%). Other notable toxicities included neuropathy (FOLFOX 69%, CAPOX 62%), neutropenia (FOLFOX 52%, FP 55%), hand-foot syndrome in CP (46%), and thromboembolic events (FP 12%, CP 11%). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX shown better PFS than CP. Adverse effects varied: neuropathy was more common with oxaliplatin, while thromboembolism was more frequent with cisplatin.

The multispecies microbial cluster of Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Bacteroides and Faecalibacterium as a precision biomarker for colorectal cancer diagnosis.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased worldwide, and early diagnosis is crucial to reduce mortality rates. Therefore, new noninvasive biomarkers for CRC are required. Recent studies have revealed an imbalance in the oral and gut microbiomes of patients with CRC, as well as impaired gut vascular barrier function. In the present study, the microbiomes of saliva, crevicular fluid, feces, and non-neoplastic and tumor intestinal tissue samples of 93 CRC patients and 30 healthy individuals without digestive disorders (non-CRC) were analyzed by 16S rRNA metabarcoding procedures. The data revealed that Parvimonas, Fusobacterium, and Bacteroides fragilis were significantly over-represented in stool samples of CRC patients, whereas Faecalibacterium and Blautia were significantly over-abundant in the non-CRC group. Moreover, the tumor samples were enriched in well-known periodontal anaerobes, including Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas, and Prevotella. Co-occurrence patterns of these oral microorganisms were observed in the subgingival pocket and in the tumor tissues of CRC patients, where they also correlated with other gut microbes, such as Hungatella. This study provides new evidence that oral pathobionts, normally located in subgingival pockets, can migrate to the colon and probably aggregate with aerobic bacteria, forming synergistic consortia. Furthermore, we suggest that the group composed of Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Bacteroides, and Faecalibacterium could be used to design an excellent noninvasive fecal test for the early diagnosis of CRC. The combination of these four genera would significantly improve the reliability of a discriminatory test with respect to others that use a single species as a unique CRC biomarker.