Efficacy of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil According to Extended RAS Evaluation in Advanced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are few molecular markers driving treatment selection in later lines of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer patients. The vast majority of patients who progress after first- and second-line therapy undergo chemotherapy regardless of molecular data. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive effects of specific RAS mutations on overall survival of patients receiving regorafenib (rego), trifluridine/tipiracil (TFD/TPI), or both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study based on data from a previous study of our research network, involving nine Italian institutions over a 10-year timeframe (2012-2022). Extended RAS analysis, involving KRAS exon 2-4 and NRAS exon 2-4, and BRAF were the main criteria for inclusion in this retrospective evaluation. Patients with BRAF mutation were excluded. Patients were classified according to treatment (rego- or TFD/TPI-treated) and RAS mutational status (wild-type [WT], KRAS codon 12 mutations, KRAS codon 13 mutations, KRAS rare mutations and NRAS mutations, KRAS G12C mutation and KRAS G12D mutation). RESULTS: Overall, 582 patients were included in the present analysis. Overall survival did not significantly differ in rego-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in patients carrying G12D mutation (12.0 months), Codon 13 mutation (8.0 months), and Codon 12 mutation (7.0 months) has been observed, when compared with WT patients (6.0 months). Overall survival did not significantly differ in TFD/TPI-treated patients according to RAS extended analysis, although a trend toward a better median survival in WT patients had been observed (9.0 months) in comparison with the entire population (7.0 months). Patients receiving both drugs displayed a longer survival when compared with the population of patients receiving rego alone (p = 0.005) as well as the population receiving TFD/TPI alone (p < 0.001), suggesting a group enriched for favorable prognostic factors. However, when each group was analyzed separately, the addition of TFD/TPI therapy to the rego-treated group improved survival only in all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.003). Differently, the addition of rego therapy to TFD/TPI-treated patients significantly improved OS in the Codon 12 group (p = 0.0004), G12D group (p = 0.003), and the rare mutations group (p = 0.02), in addition to all-RAS WT patients (p = 0.002). The rego-TFD/TPI sequence, compared with the reverse sequence, significantly improved OS only in the KRAS codon 12 group (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that RAS mutations do not affect outcome in rego-treated patients as well as TFD/TPI-treated patients. Nevertheless, a trend toward a higher efficacy of rego in RAS-mutated (in particular codon 12, rare RAS mutations, and G12D) patients has been recorded. The rego-TFD/TPI sequence seems to be superior to the reverse sequence in patients carrying an RAS codon 12 mutation, although the impact of other factors as disease burden or performance status cannot be excluded.

Retrospective Correlation between First Drug Treatment Duration and Survival Outcomes in Sequential Treatment with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Subgroup Analysis.

Background: Patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) rarely receive third-line or further treatment. In this context, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two important novel therapeutic choices with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control, with different toxicity profiles. This study is a subgroup analysis of our larger retrospective study, already published, whose objective was to assess the outcomes of patients when R and T were given sequentially. Patients and Methods: The study involved thirteen Italian cancer centers on a 10-year retrospective observation (2012-2022). In this subgroup analysis, we focused our attention on the correlation between the first drug treatment duration (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months) and survival outcomes in patients who had received the sequence regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil, or vice versa. Results: The initial study included 866 patients with mCRC who received sequential T/R, or R/T, or T or R alone. This analysis is focused on evaluating the impact of the duration of the first treatment in the sequence on clinical outcomes (OS, PFS) and includes 146 and 116 patients of the T/R and R/T sequences, respectively. Based on the duration of the first drug treatment, subgroups for the T/R sequence included 27 patients (18.4%) who received T for <3 months, 86 (58.9%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 33 (22.6%) treated for ≥6 months; in the reverse sequence (R as the first drug), subgroups included 18 patients (15.5%) who received their first treatment for <3 months, 62 (53.4%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 35 (31.0%) treated for ≥6 months. In patients who received their first drug treatment for a period of 3 to <6 months, the R/T sequence had a significantly longer median OS (13.7 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.0069) and a longer median PFS (10.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.0003) than the T/R group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with first drug treatment durations of <3 months and ≥6 months. Conclusions: Our analysis seems to suggest that the administration of R for a period of 3 to <6 months before that of T can prolong both OS and PFS, as compared to the opposite sequence.

Irinotecan- vs. Oxaliplatin-Based Doublets in KRASG12C-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Multicentre Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has recently been recognized as a distinct druggable molecular entity; however, there are limited data on its sensitivity to standard chemotherapy. In the near future, the combination of chemotherapy plus a KRASG12C-inhibitor might become the standard of care; however, the optimal chemotherapy backbone is unknown. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective analysis was conducted including KRASG12C-mutated mCRC patients treated with first-line FOLFIRI or FOLFOX +/- bevacizumab. Both unmatched and propensity-score-matched analysis (PSMA) were conducted, with PSMA controlling for: previous adjuvant chemotherapy, ECOG PS, use of bevacizumab in first line, timing of metastasis appearance, time from diagnosis to first-line start, number of metastatic sites, presence of mucinous component, gender, and age. Subgroup analyses were also performed to investigate subgroup treatment-effect interactions. KRASG12D-mutated patients were analysed as control. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients treated with irinotecan-(N = 47) or oxaliplatin-based (N = 57) chemotherapy were included. In the unmatched population, objective response rate (ORR) and median (m) progression-free and overall survival (mPFS and mOS) were comparable between the treatment arms. However, a late (>12 months) PFS advantage was observed with irinotecan (HR 0.62, p = 0.02). In the PSMA-derived cohort, a significant improvement with irinotecan vs. oxaliplatin was observed for both PFS and OS: 12- and 24-month PFS rates of 55% vs. 31% and 40% vs. 0% (HR 0.40, p = 0.01) and mOS 37.9 vs. 21.7 months (HR 0.45, p = 0.045), respectively. According to the subgroup analysis, interaction effects between the presence of lung metastases and treatment groups were found in terms of PFS (p for interaction = 0.08) and OS (p for interaction = 0.03), with a higher benefit from irinotecan in patients without lung metastases. No difference between treatment groups was observed in the KRASG12D-mutated cohort (N = 153). CONCLUSIONS: First-line irinotecan-based regimens provided better survival results in KRASG12C-mutated mCRC patients and should be preferred over oxaliplatin. These findings should also be considered when investigating chemotherapy plus targeted agent combinations.

Acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: Is there a role for endoscopic stenting?

The therapy of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction continues to be one of the largest problems in clinical practice. Numerous studies on colonic stenting for neoplastic colonic obstruction have been reported in the last decades. Thereby the role of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of malignant colonic obstruction has become better defined. However, numerous prospective and retrospective investigations have highlighted serious concerns about a possible worse outcome after endoscopic colorectal stenting as a bridge to surgery, particularly in case of perforation. This review analyzes the most recent evidence in order to highlight pros and cons of SEMS placement in left-sided malignant colonic obstruction.

Treatment Settings and Outcomes with Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil at Third-Line Treatment and beyond in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes. RESULTS: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) (p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T (p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) (p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) (p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Efficacy of third-line anti-EGFR-based treatment versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil according to primary tumor site in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Background: Right- (R) and left-sided (L) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) exhibit different clinical and molecular features. Several retrospective analyses showed that survival benefit of anti-EGFR-based therapy is limited to RAS/BRAF wt L-sided mCRC patients. Few data are available about third-line anti-EGFR efficacy according to primary tumor site. Methods: RAS/BRAF wt patients mCRC treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (R/T) were retrospectively collected. The objective of the analysis was to compare treatment efficacy according to tumor site. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity. Results: A total of 76 RAS/BRAF wt mCRC patients, treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy or R/T, were enrolled. Of those, 19 (25%) patients had a R-sided tumor (9 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 10 patients R/T) and 57 (75%) patients had a L-sided tumor (30 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 27 patients R/T). A significant PFS [7.2 vs 3.6 months, HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.2-0.76), p= 0.004] and OS benefit [14.9 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.98), p= 0.045] in favor of anti-EGFR therapy vs R/T was observed in the L-sided tumor group. No difference in PFS and OS was observed in the R-sided tumor group. A significant interaction according to primary tumor site and third-line regimen was observed for PFS (p= 0.05). RR was significantly higher in L-sided patients treated with anti-EGFR vs R/T (43% vs. 0%; p <0.0001), no difference was observed in R-sided patients. At the multivariate analysis, third-line regimen was independently associated with PFS in L-sided patients. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated a different benefit from third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy according to primary tumor site, confirming the role of L-sided tumor in predicting benefit from third-line anti-EGFR vs R/T. At the same time, no difference was observed in R-sided tumor.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

Aim: The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens. Study design and methods: Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet). Results: Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Conclusion: In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Treatments after second progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies.

BACKGROUND: The availability of new drugs in the chemo-refractory setting opened the way to the concepts of treatment sequencing in mCRC. However, the impact of later line options in the therapeutic route of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and the attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy are not well established. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of treatments administered after the 2nd disease progression in 1187 mCRC patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies, where upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev was compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI/bev. Per each line, we assessed the attrition rate, treatment choices and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 625 (53%), 326 (27%) and 136 (11%) patients received a systemic treatment after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th disease progression, respectively. PFS and objective response rate decreased along each line. RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received more likely a 3rd line (75%) compared with RAS (66%, p = 0.005) and BRAF (66%, p = 0.11) mutants. In 3rd line, 67% of RAS/BRAF wild-type patients received anti-EGFRs, achieving longer PFS with respect to other therapies (6.4 vs 3.9 months, p = 0.02). A trend towards longer 3rd line OS was observed in TRIBE patients (9.9 vs 7.2 months, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A relevant attrition rate across subsequent lines of therapy is evident, and more pronounced in RAS and BRAF mutated patients, thus highlighting the relevance of the choice of the upfront treatment. The efficacy of anti-EGFR agents among RAS/BRAF wild-type patients unexposed to anti-EGFRs is higher than other options. The reintroduction of chemotherapy remains frequent in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials. gov Identifiers NCT00719797, NCT02339116.

Prognostic and Predictive Role of Body Mass Index (BMI) in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): A Pooled Analisys of Tribe and Tribe-2 Studies by GONO.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with an increased risk of development and recurrence of colorectal cancer. The role of obesity in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (pts) is still unclear, especially in those treated with triplet plus bevacizumab (bev). The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of BMI in metastatic colorectal cancer pts treated with FOLFOXIRI plus bev or FOLFIRI/FOLFOX plus bev in the TRIBE and TRIBE-2 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1160 pts enrolled in TRIBE and TRIBE-2 trials were included. Baseline height and weight were used to assign pts to one of the following BMI categories: underweight (group A = BMI <18.5 kg/m2; 52 pts), normal (group B = BMI 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 952 pts) and obese (group C > 30 kg/m2; 156 pts). RESULTS: In our population, no differences in terms of PFS (P = .43) or OS (P = .99) resulted between 3 groups. No interaction effect between treatment arm and BMI was evident in terms of PFS (Group A HR: 0.65 [95%CI: 0.36-1.16]; Group B HR: 0.77 [95%CI: 0.67-0.88]; Group C HR: 0.67 [95%CI: 0.48-0.93]; P for interaction = .75) or OS (Group A HR: 0.57 [95%CI: 0.29-1.12]; Group B HR: 0.85 [95%CI: 0.73-0.99];Group C HR: 0.69 [95%CI: 0.48-1.01] P for interaction = .36). No statistically significant difference in terms of dose reductions due to toxicities were found according to BMI in the overall population (P = .48) and in pts treated with FOLFOXIRI plus bev (P = .57). CONCLUSION: BMI was neither prognostic or predictive for PFS and OS in our population. Our analyses showed that the advantage of FOLFOXIRI plus bev versus FOLFIRI/FOLFOX plus bev was independent from BMI.

Reduced-dose of doublet chemotherapy combined with anti-EGFR antibodies in vulnerable older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Data from the REVOLT study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the toxicity patterns and effectiveness of doublet chemotherapy when administered at reduced doses of 20% (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) in combination with anti-EGFR antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab) in old, vulnerable patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study of RAS and BRAF wild-type, vulnerable patients aged ≥70 years with previously untreated mCRC. The primary endpoint was safety, and secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients were collected from 14 selected Italian centres. The median age was 75 (range, 70-85). Geriatric screening by G8 tool gave a score ≤ 14 in all patients. In total, 75 and 43 patients received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, respectively, in combination with panitumumab (53%) or cetuximab (47%). The overall incidence of grade (G) 3-4 neutropenia was 11.8%, and for skin rash 11%. The most frequent adverse events were G1-2 skin rash (49.1%), G1-2 diarrhea (21.1%) and G1-2 nausea (17.7%). The ORR was 57.3%. Stable disease was observed in 29.1% of patients, with a disease control rate of 86.4%. With a median follow-up of 18 months, the median PFS was 10.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.5-11.4), while the median OS was 18.0 months (95% CI: 16.0-19.9). No statistically significant difference was observed between the regimens in terms of ORR, PFS (p = 0.908), and OS (p = 0.832). CONCLUSION: This study shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced doses, vulnerable older patients best tolerate chemotherapy when combined with anti-EGFR antibodies.

A multicenter study of skin toxicity management in patients with left-sided, RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line anti-EGFR-based doublet regimen: is there room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is well known. However, ad hoc ESMO guidelines have only recently been published. AIM AND METHODS: To describe the management (pre-emptive or reactive) of anti-EGFR-related cutaneous adverse events (AEs), in a real-life clinical context, in a selected population of patients with left-sided, metastatic RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (i.e., panitumumab or cetuximab) as first-line regimen at 22 Institutions. The measured clinical outcomes were treatment-related adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 515 patients included in the analysis, 173 (33.6%) received a pre-emptive and 342 (66.4%) a reactive treatment. The median follow-up period for the overall population was 30.0 months. A significantly lower incidence of any grade acneiform rash was found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort both in the overall population (78.6% vs 94.4%, p < 0.001) and in patients treated with panitumumab (76.1% vs 93.7%, p < 0.001) or cetuximab (83.3% vs 95.4%, p = 0.004), respectively. A lower incidence of any grade (41.6% vs 50.9%, p = 0.047) but a higher incidence of G3-G4 (9.2% vs 4.7%, p = 0.042) paronychia/nail disorders were found in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort. Nevertheless, a lower rate of patients within the reactive compared to the pre-emptive cohort was referred to dermatological counseling (21.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, p = 0.001). A higher rate of anti-EGFR therapy modification was needed in the pre-emptive compared to the reactive cohort (35.9% vs 41.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). The pre-emptive approach did not reduce the efficacy of antineoplastic therapy compared to the reactive in terms of ORR (69.2% vs 72.8%), median PFS (12.3 vs 13.0 months), and median OS (28.8 vs 33.5 months). CONCLUSION: Although recommended by international guidelines, the pre-emptive approach of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in mCRC patients still appears less adopted in daily clinical practice, compared to the reactive one. A wider reception and application of this indication is desirable to improve patients' quality of life without compromising the continuity and efficacy of antineoplastic therapy.

Clinicians' Attitude to Doublet Plus Anti-EGFR Versus Triplet Plus Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment in Left-Sided RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter, "Real-Life", Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Doublets plus antiepidermal growth factor receptors monoclonal antibodies (EGFRi) are widely considered the preferable first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), resulting superior in terms of activity and efficacy compared to doublets plus bevacizumab. However, data comparing doublet plus EGFRi and triplet plus bevacizumab are lacking, and the relative benefit of an intensive regimen plus an antiangiogenic backbone in this population is debated. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating clinicians' attitude to triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi as first-line regimen in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC treated in clinical practice at 22 Oncology Units from March 2012 to October 2020. A random case-control matching was performed to compare activity (ORR), and effectiveness (PFS, OS, secondary resection rate of metastases with curative intent) between triplet-bevacizumab and doublet-EGFRi, on the basis of ECOG-PS, age, gender, and burden of disease. RESULTS: A total of 718 patients were consecutively treated with doublet-EGFRi (686, 95.5%) or triplet-bevacizumab (32, 4.5%). After case-control matching, median PFS was 13.6 (95% CI, 8.9-31.7) and 16.1 (95% CI, 12.1-36.8) months (P= .621), while median OS was 30.2 (95% CI, 14.4-69.5) and 38.1 (95% CI, 33.1-101.1) months (P= .0283) in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. The ORR was 65.6% and 90.6% (P= .016), while the secondary resection rate was 18.8% and 46.9% (P= .016), in the doublet-EGFRi and the triplet-bevacizumab cohort, respectively. Triplet-bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of G3/G4 neutropenia (25.0% vs. 12.5%, P= .041). CONCLUSION: Although a doublet-EGFRi remains the recommended upfront regimen in patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC, our real life data suggest a triplet-bevacizumab might be at least equally active and effective in properly selected cases.

Synaptophysin expression in V600EBRAF-mutated advanced colorectal cancers identifies a new subgroup of tumours with worse prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine differentiation has been extensively associated with worse prognosis and to mechanisms of therapy resistance in several epithelial cancers. A high prevalence of neuroendocrine differentiation was recently described in V600EBRAF-mutated (BRAFmt) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) but no data are available about its prognostic impact in this setting. METHODS: We assessed synaptophysin immunohistochemical expression in a multi-institutional series of 159 BRAFmt mCRCs with matched clinical and pathological information. Tumours were dichotomized as synaptophysin high and low. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Thirty-five tumours (22.0%) showed any level of positivity for synaptophysin, and 18 (11.3%) were characterized by positivity in at least 20% of tumour cells. Four cases resulted 100% synaptophysin positive. The histotype of synaptophysin-positive tumours (i.e. ≥20%) was not otherwise specified in 11 cases (61.1%) and mucinous adenocarcinoma in 4 cases (22.2%). Four cases were DNA mismatch repair deficient (22.2%) and 7 (38.9%) were characterized by a high number of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes. At multivariate analysis, high synaptophysin expression was a negative independent prognostic factor for both PFS (HR = 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-3.33, p = 0.006) and OS (HR = 2.27, 95% CI 1.35-3.85, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among BRAFmt mCRCs, synaptophysin-positive tumours are characterized by worse PFS and OS. Further studies should investigate the molecular mechanisms involved in the acquisition of the neuroendocrine phenotype to identify novel-targeted treatment strategies.

Evaluation of Prognostic Factors for Survival in Transverse Colon Cancer.

Background: Although most of the analyses included transverse colon cancers (TCC) among right colon cancer (RCC), it is not completely clear if they present total similarities with RCC or if they have their specific features. Therefore, we present an observational study to evaluate clinicopathological characteristics and survival data of patients with TCC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 450 RCC, of whom 97 stages I-IV TCC were included in this multicenter study; clinicopathological and molecular parameters were analyzed to identify prognostic factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Most of TCC cases were male (61%), with ≤70 years old (62%), and good performance status (ECOG PS 0, 68%). According to WHO classification, 41 (49%) and 40 (48%) tumors were classified as well to moderate and poorly/undifferentiated respectively, regardless of mucinous component (30%). About molecular data, 8 (26%), 45 (63%), and 14 (24%) were MSI-H, KRAS wild-type, and BRAF V600E mutant, respectively. With a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 29 and 50 disease recurrences and deaths respectively. Charlson comorbidity index ≥5 was a significant prognostic factor for DFS (HR = 7.67, 95% CI 2.27-25.92). Colon obstruction/perforation (HR = 2.65, 95% CI 1.01-7.01), and BRAF mutant (HR = 3.03, 95% CI 0.97-9.50) cases showed a worst, despite not statistically significant, DFS. Whereas for OS, at the multivariate model, only tumor grade differentiation (HR = 5.26, 95% CI 1.98-14.01) and BRAF mutation status (3.71, 95% CI 1.07-12.89) were independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: Poorly/undifferentiated tumor grade and BRAF V600E mutation are independent prognostic factors for OS in TCC. Further prospective clinical trials are needed to better define TCC treatment in order to improve patient outcome.

Denosumab for cancer-related bone loss.

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged use of anti-cancer treatments in breast and prostate tumors alters physiological bone turnover leading to adverse skeletal related events, such as osteoporosis, loss of bone mass, and increased risk of fractures. These complications known as cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) should be managed with bone targeting agents such as the bisphosphonates and denosumab. The latter is a monoclonal antibody against the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand (RANKL) that suppresses osteoclasts function and survival increasing bone mass. AREAS COVERED: This review will focus on the mechanisms associated with bone loss induced by cancer treatments and the most recent evidence about the use of denosumab as preventive and therapeutic strategy to protect bone health. Moreover, we will discuss several key aspects regarding the clinical practical use of denosumab to optimize the management of CTLIB in breast and prostate cancer. EXPERT OPINION: Denosumab treatment strongly prevents cancer therapies-related skeletal issues in breast and prostate cancer with a good safety profile. Adjuvant six-monthly denosumab delays the time to first fracture onset in early stage breast cancer patients with normal or altered bone mineral density (BMD). Similarly, denosumab treatment is able to prevent fractures and BMD loss in nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients.

Anti-EGFR Therapy in Metastatic Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma: Myth or Reality?

BACKGROUND: Due to the relative rarity of small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA), prospective trials, helping to guide therapeutic decisions, are lacking and the optimal therapy for advanced SBA is unknown. The role of targeted agents, such as anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter observational study that included patients with metastatic SBA treated with anti-EGFR antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab) ± chemotherapy in the first (I) or second (II) line. RESULTS: Thirteen patients with metastatic SBA, recruited from 5 Italian referral institutions, were included in the present retrospective analysis. All patients received anti-EGFR inhibitors as a single agent or in association with chemotherapy. More common G2 treatment-related side effects were skin reaction (8 patients, 53.8%), hypomagnesemia (6 patients, 46.2%), and diarrhea (8 patients, 61.5%). Grade 3 diarrhea was observed in only 1 patient. Conjunctivitis was not reported in any patients. Grade 4 toxicity was not reported. In the overall population, median progression-free survival was 5.526 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.684-12.467). Median overall survival was 15.86 months (95% CI: 14.43-24.30). Complete response was observed in 15% of patients, partial response in 39% of patients, stable disease in 23% of patients, and progression disease in 15% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, anti-EGFR inhibitors showed to be a suitable addendum to chemotherapy in the I and II line, with an excellent tolerance and safety profile both in I and II line.

Correction to: Liquid biopsy and tumor heterogeneity in metastatic solid tumors: the potentiality of blood samples.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

COVID-19 pneumonia and immune-related pneumonitis: critical issues on differential diagnosis, potential interactions, and management.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic occurred amid the cancer immunotherapy revolution. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for several solid cancers and are associated with peculiar toxicities, including pneumonitis which has similar features to COVID-19 pneumonia. AREAS COVERED: We summarize the main hallmarks of lung injury induced by ICIs and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and discuss the critical aspects for differential diagnosis and management. Symptoms and radiological findings are often similar; conversely, treatments are quite different. Furthermore, we focus on potential interactions generating hypotheses that need confirmatory studies. EXPERT OPINION: All cancer patients treated with immunotherapy should receive screening for SARS-CoV-2. This would improve the diagnosis and management of pneumonia and guide therapeutic choices. Furthermore, clinicians could estimate the risk/benefit of continuing ICI treatment in COVID-19 positive patients. Temporary withdrawal of the immunotherapy treatment pending resolution of viral infection may be a reasonable option in long-responders patients.

Evaluation of Second-line Anti-VEGF after First-line Anti-EGFR Based Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Multicenter "SLAVE" Study.

: Background: The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy as second-line treatment in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) based first-line treatment is still debated. METHODS: This multicenter, real-world, retrospective study is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of second-line Bevacizumab- and Aflibercept-based treatments after an anti-EGFR based first-line regimen. Clinical outcomes measured were: objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) profiles. RESULTS: From February 2011 to October 2019, 277 consecutive mCRC patients received Bevacizumab-based (228, 82.3%) or Aflibercept-based (49, 17.7%) regimen. No significant difference was found regarding ORR. The median follow-up was 27.7 months (95%CI: 24.7-34.4). Aflibercept-treated group had a significantly shorter PFS compared to Bevacizumab-treated group (5.6 vs. 7.1 months, respectively) (HR = 1.34 (95%CI: 0.95-1.89); p = 0.0932). The median OS of the Bevacizumab-treated group and Aflibercept-treated group was 16.2 (95%CI: 15.3-18.1) and 12.7 (95%CI: 8.8-17.5) months, respectively (HR= 1.31 (95%CI: 0.89-1.93) p = 0.16). After adjusting for the key covariates (age, gender, performance status, number of metastatic sites and primary tumor side) Bevacizumab-based regimens revealed to be significantly related with a prolonged PFS (HR = 1.44 (95%CI: 1.02-2.03); p = 0.0399) compared to Aflibercept-based regimens, but not with a prolonged OS (HR = 1.47 (95%CI: 0.99-2.17); p = 0.0503). The incidence of G3/G4 VEGF inhibitors class-specific AEs was 7.5% and 26.5% in the Bevacizumab-treated group and the Aflibercept-treated group, respectively (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis seems to reveal that Bevacizumab-based regimens have a slightly better PFS and class-specific AEs profile compared to Aflibercept-based regimen as second-line treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC patients previously treated with anti-EGFR based treatments. These results have to be taken with caution and no conclusive considerations are allowed.

Facing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in immunotherapy era.

The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents a worldwide sanitary emergency. The viral biology is only partially known, with some aspects in common with other coronaviruses, and the damage observed in the most severe cases is due to intense inflammation. Immunotherapy restores immunological activity against cancer cells and it has become a standard treatment for several cancers. We carried out an examination of available data on the effects exerted by both SARS-CoV-2 and the most widespread immunotherapy treatments on the immune system in order to hypothesize mechanisms underlying potential and mutual interaction. We provided an analysis of laboratory, clinical and therapeutic data related with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. We finally focused on implications of immunotherapy treatments in clinical practice.