The circulating soluble form of the CD40 costimulatory immune checkpoint receptor and liver metastasis risk in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer, the inflamed tumour microenvironment with its angiogenic activities is immune- tolerant and incites progression to liver metastasis. We hypothesised that angiogenic and inflammatory factors in serum samples from patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer could inform on liver metastasis risk. METHODS: We measured 84 angiogenic and inflammatory markers in serum sampled at the time of diagnosis within the population-based cohort of 122 stage I-III patients. In a stepwise manner, the statistically strongest proteins associated with time to development of liver metastasis were analysed in the corresponding serum samples from 273 stage II-III rectal cancer patients in three independent cohorts. RESULTS: We identified the soluble form of the costimulatory immune checkpoint receptor cluster of differentiation molecule 40 (sCD40) as a marker of liver metastasis risk across all patient cohorts-the higher the sCD40 level, the shorter time to liver metastasis. In patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment, the sCD40 value remained an independent variable associated with progression to liver metastasis along with the local treatment response. Of note, serum sCD40 was not associated with progression to lung metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating sCD40 is a marker of liver metastasis risk in rectal cancer and may be developed for use in clinical practice.

Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer with Either Oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine, and Capecitabine or Cisplatin and Gemcitabine-A Randomized Phase II Trial.

This study is an investigator-initiated randomized phase II trial focusing on the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer with either oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 in a two-week cycle with capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice-daily continuously or cisplatin 25 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 in a three-week cycle. One-hundred patients were included. Forty-seven patients received oxaliplatin, gemcitabine, and capecitabine with a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.7 months (95% CI 3.0-7.8) and a median overall survival (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.5-11.2). Forty-nine patients received cisplatin and gemcitabine with a mPFS of 7.3 months (95% CI 6.0-8.7) and a mOS of 12.0 months (95% CI 8.3-16.7). This trial confirms a mOS of 12 months with cisplatin and gemcitabine, as found in earlier trials. With a superior tumor control rate of 79% vs. 60% (p = 0.045), a difference in the mPFS of 1.6 months (HR = 0.721, p = 0.1), and a difference in the mOS of 3.3 months (HR = 0.731, p = 0.1), cisplatin and gemcitabine should still be considered the standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer.

Sex-related differences in primary metastatic site in rectal cancer; associated with hemodynamic factors?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We investigated how features relating to pelvic cavity anatomy and tumor hemodynamic factors may influence systemic failure in rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rectal cancer patients (207 women, 343 men), who had been prospectively enrolled onto six cohorts and given curative-intent therapy, were analyzed for the first metastatic event. In one of the cohorts, the diameter of the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) was assessed on diagnostic abdominal computed tomography images (n = 113). Tumor volume (n = 193) and histologic response to neoadjuvant therapy (n = 445) were recorded from diagnostic magnetic resonance images and surgical specimens, respectively. RESULTS: More women than men developed lung metastasis (p = 0.037), while the opposite was the case for liver metastasis (p = 0.040). Wider IMV diameter correlated with larger tumor volume (r = 0.481, p < 0.001) and male sex (p < 0.001). Female sex was the only adverse prognostic factor for lung metastasis. When sex, tumor volume, and histologic response were taken into consideration, poor tumor response remained the only determinant for liver metastasis (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse rectal cancer population given curative-intent treatment, women and men had different outcome with regard to the primary metastatic site. Tumor hemodynamic factors should be considered in rectal cancer risk stratification.

Intrahepatic Oxaliplatin and Systemic 5-FU +/- Cetuximab in Chemo-Naïve Patients with Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In case of response to chemotherapy, unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer can be converted to resectable and thereby obtain a chance of cure. The primary aim of this trial was to evaluate the response rate with intrahepatic oxaliplatin in combination with systemic 5-FU +/- cetuximab. Secondary aims were to evaluate the conversion rate from unresectable to resectable liver metastases, median progression-free survival, median overall survival, and toxicity. METHODS: Forty-five chemo-naïve patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer were treated in a prospective phase II trial. Calcium folinate and 5-FU were delivered systemically while oxaliplatin was delivered alternating between systemic and intrahepatic administration. When oxaliplatin was delivered intrahepatic-ally, infusion time was reduced to 10 min followed by embolic material. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, cetuximab was added. RESULTS: The treatment was well tolerated and only pain in the liver and a mild increase in liver enzymes were observed after intrahepatic oxaliplatin. The patients obtained a response rate of 82%. Further, 58% converted from having unresectable to resectable liver metastases. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 38.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.0-44.3) and 12.9 months (95% CI 10.2-15.6), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intrahepatic infusion of oxaliplatin in 10 min with systemic 5-FU to patients with chemo-naïve colorectal cancer is feasible and with low toxicity. A high response rate and long median overall survival were obtained.

Systematic review: Incidence, risk factors, survival and treatment of bone metastases from colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bones are not considered a frequent metastatic site in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The purpose of the present study was to determine the incidence of bone metastases (BM) in CRC, to identify possible risk factors for BM, survival after BM, and effect of treatment of BM including antiresorptive treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A computer-based literature search was carried out using PubMed and EMBASE. RESULTS: We included 29 studies. One randomized placebo controlled trial (RCT) study, two autopsy studies, five register studies, and twenty retrospective cohort studies. The studies described different cohorts making direct comparison difficult. Three studies analysed the effect of different treatments for BM including one RCT study. CONCLUSION: The incidence of bone metastases was 3-7% in patients with CRC, and it was not possible to detect an increase in incidence over time. The most well established risk factors for BM are rectal cancer, having lymph node invasion at surgery of primary tumor, and lung metastases at any time. Other risk factors such as RAS mutation status have been suggested but results are not conclusive. Survival ranges from 5 to 21 months after diagnosis of BM depending on cohort, with survival of about 8 months in unselected patients. Several variables have been suggested as potential prognostic markers but are all poorly investigated. Treatment of BM is not well investigated, though patients seem to benefit from bisphosphonate treatment with regard to lower risk of skeletal related events. This review highlights the need for new research in the area.

Engaging the older cancer patient; Patient Activation through Counseling, Exercise and Mobilization - Pancreatic, Biliary tract and Lung cancer (PACE-Mobil-PBL) - study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Several intervention studies have demonstrated that exercise training has beneficial effects among cancer patients. However, older cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, and only few exercise-based studies have focused specifically on older patients with cancer. In particular, research investigating the effects of exercise training among older patients with advanced cancer is lacking. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the effect of a 12-week multimodal and exercise-based intervention among older patients (≥65 years) with advanced pancreatic, biliary tract or lung cancer, who are treated with first-line palliative chemotherapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy. METHODS: PACE-Mobil-PBL is a two-armed randomized controlled trial. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to an intervention group (N = 50) or a control group (N = 50). Participants in the intervention group will receive standard oncological treatment and a 12-week multimodal intervention, comprised of: (I) supervised exercise training, twice weekly in the hospital setting, (II) home-based walking with step counts and goal-setting, (III) supportive and motivational nurse-led counseling, and (IV) protein supplement after each supervised training session. Participants in the control group will receive standard oncological treatment. The primary outcome is physical function measured by the 30-s chair stand test. Secondary outcomes include measures of feasibility, activity level, physical capacity and strength, symptom burden, quality of life, toxicity to treatment, dose reductions, inflammatory biomarkers, body weight and composition, hospitalizations and survival. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 16 weeks. DISCUSSION: The current study is one of the first to investigate the effect of an exercise-based intervention specifically targeting older patients with advanced cancer. PACE-Mobil-PBL supports the development of health promoting guidelines for older patients with cancer, and the study results will provide new and valuable knowledge in this understudied field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on January 26, 2018 (ID: NCT03411200 ).

Safety and feasibility of home-based chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of home-based chemotherapy and to compare chemotherapy given at home with chemotherapy given as an outpatient treatment in relation to toxicity, quality of life and patient's preference. METHODS: Patients who had undergone radical surgery for colon cancer and who were eligible to receive adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin could be included. To ensure patient safety, the first infusion was given at an outpatient clinic. Patients with adverse events graded ≤ 2 on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 were randomised to either group A continuing with four treatments at home followed by three in an outpatient clinic, or to group B continuing with three treatments in an outpatient clinic followed by four at home. To assess quality of life, the EuroQol-5 Domain was used at baseline and before each treatment. Preference cards were used at baseline and at end of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were included between 2007 and 2010. Forty-two patients continued in either group A or B. The nurse found that the treatment was safe and acceptable in all cases. In 145 cycles (99.3%), patients answered that they felt secure; only one patient answered: "Do not know". The highest-ranking preferences for patients were transportation time followed by waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that home-based chemotherapy is feasible and safe and that it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic. FUNDING: This study was supported by a grant from Roche. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

Systemic immune response induced by oxaliplatin-based neoadjuvant therapy favours survival without metastatic progression in high-risk rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Systemic failure remains a challenge in rectal cancer. We investigated the possible systemic anti-tumour immune activity invoked within oxaliplatin-based neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: In two high-risk patient cohorts, we assessed the circulating levels of the fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand (Flt3L), a factor reflecting both therapy-induced myelosuppression and activation of tumour antigen-presenting dendritic cells, at baseline and following induction chemotherapy and sequential chemoradiotherapy, both modalities containing oxaliplatin. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In both cohorts, the median Flt3L level was significantly higher at completion of each sequential modality than at baseline. The 5-year PFS (most events being metastatic progression) was 68% and 71% in the two cohorts consisting of 33% and 52% T4 cases. In the principal cohort, a high Flt3L level following the induction chemotherapy was associated with low risk for a PFS event (HR: 0.15; P < 0.01). These patients also had available dose scheduling and toxicity data, revealing that oxaliplatin dose reduction during chemoradiotherapy, undertaken to maintain compliance to the radiotherapy protocol, was associated with advantageous PFS (HR: 0.47; P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: In high-risk rectal cancer, oxaliplatin-containing neoadjuvant therapy may promote an immune response that favours survival without metastatic progression.

Associations between primary tumor RAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutation status and metastatic site in patients with chemo-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated correlations between metastatic pattern and mutation status in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, most of the studies were small and heterogeneously designed and further research is needed to confirm previous results. In this study, we investigated the association between RAS (KRAS or NRAS), BRAF, PIK3CA mutations and metastatic pattern in patients with metastatic (m) CRC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study reviewed Danish biobank and database of patients with mCRC who received cetuximab and irinotecan, independent of RAS mutation status, after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan treatment failure. The database contained information regarding tumor mutation status of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA genes. RESULTS: Totally, 448 patients were included. On multivariate analyses, RAS mutations were significantly associated with increased odds of having lung metastases at diagnosis of mCRC (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.32-3.17), and PIK3CA mutations with decreased odds of peritoneal metastases at diagnosis of mCRC (OR = 0.10; 95%CI = 0.01-0.79). On multivariate analyses of the hazard of developing metastases at any time during follow-up, RAS mutations were significantly associated with increased hazard of lung (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.34; 95%CI = 1.04-1.72) and ovarian metastases (HR = 3.12; 95%CI = 1.05-9.24), BRAF V600E mutation was associated with increased hazard of skin metastases (HR = 6.82; 95%CI = 1.86-25.02) and PIK3CA mutations with decreased hazard of peritoneal metastases (HR = 0.31; 95%CI = 0.11-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that in patients with mCRC, RAS mutations are associated with increased risk of lung and ovary metastases. BRAF V600E is associated with increased risk of skin metastases, and PIK3CA mutation with decreased risk of peritoneal metastases.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Despite advances in the treatment of colorectal cancer, third-line treatment options are still limited. Regorafenib was approved in 2012 for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with approved standard therapy. The purpose of this review is to present existing clinical data on regorafenib. METHOD: We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases, as well as ASCO and ESMO conference abstracts, for studies in English including ≥30 patients, evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis was conducted on the published, randomized phase III trials. RESULTS: 24 eligible studies were included. In two phase III trials, regorafenib significantly increased overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and disease control rate when compared to placebo. Survival benefits of 1.4 and 2.5 months were presented. The meta-analysis indicated a significant greater treatment effect on OS (hazard ratio 0.67) and PFS (hazard ratio 0.40), compared to placebo. The non-randomized studies mostly supported these results. The most frequently reported adverse events were hand-foot-skin reaction (25%-86%), hypertension (11%-47%) and fatigue (2%-73%). CONCLUSION: Large phase III randomized trials indicate that regorafenib provides a benefit in OS and PFS when compared to placebo. Adverse events were common, but manageable and typical of multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Further research is needed to investigate alternative approaches to the dosing of regorafenib and to explore clinical and molecular biomarkers that can guide patient selection.

Efficacy and Safety of Capecitabine, Irinotecan, Gemcitabine, and Bevacizumab as Second-Line Treatment in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Phase II Study.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2010, gemcitabine and cisplatin have been considered standard first-line treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Many centers have replaced cisplatin with oxaliplatin, which seems to obtain similar results. While first-line treatment has been well established, there are no phase III trials supporting second-line treatment, and the phase II trials with chemotherapy do not show any clear benefit. In this study, we investigated the effect of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in second-line treatment. METHODS: From November 2013 to January 2016, 50 patients with advanced biliary tract cancer were enrolled in this prospective phase II trial. All patients had received a gemcitabine-platinum combination as first-line treatment. The patients received capecitabine, irinotecan, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in a 2-week schedule as second-line treatment. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated with a median progression-free survival of 3.6 months, a median overall survival of 6.4 months, and a response rate of 6%. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine, irinotecan, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab as a second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is well tolerated but with a modest, if any, benefit.

Dual Inhibition of EGFR and VEGF in Heavily Pretreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining irinotecan, bevacizumab, and cetuximab/panitumumab as a 4th-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: All patients had KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer and had previously received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and cetuximab/panitumumab in a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line setting. Most patients had previously received bevacizumab as well. All patients had progressed within 3 months after the last given treatment before starting the triple combination therapy every second week. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were evaluated. The triple combination therapy was well tolerated. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and the median overall survival was 11.9 months. Four patients (6%) obtained a partial response, and 40 (63%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan, bevacizumab, and cetuximab/panitumumab is safe and shows a toxicity profile corresponding to what is expected from the agents alone. The results indicate that the combination in the 4th line may result in a high rate of disease control in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Risk factors for brain metastases in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) are rare, but the incidence is suspected to rise as treatment of metastatic (m) CRC improves. The aim of this study was to identify possible biological and clinical characteristics at initial presentation of mCRC that could predict later risk of developing BM. Furthermore, we wished to estimate the incidence of BM in long-term surviving patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on a Danish multicenter cohort of patients with mCRC who received cetuximab and irinotecan (CetIri) as third-line treatment. All patients had previously progression on 5-FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin containing regimens and received CetIri treatment independent of RAS mutations status. We subsequently performed KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, PTEN, ERBB2 and EGFR sequencing of DNA extracted from primary tumor tissue. RESULTS: Totally, 480 patients were included in our study. BM were diagnosed in 42 [8.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4-11.6%] patients. Patients with BM had a significantly longer survival from mCRC diagnosis than non-BM patients (median = 32 versus 28 months, p = 0.001). On univariate cox regression analysis, the risk of developing BM was significantly increased in patients with rectal cancer (HR = 3.9; 95% CI = 1.2-13.3), metachronous metastatic disease (HR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.2-4.4) and lung metastases (HR = 4.2; 95% CI = 2.2-7.9). On multivariate cox regression analysis only lung metastases were significantly associated BM (HR = 3.5; 95% CI = 1.8-6.8). None of the investigated mutations were associated with BM. CONCLUSION: The incidence of BM was 8.8% in patients with mCRC who received third-line therapy. The most important risk factor for developing BM was lung metastases. Furthermore, rectal cancer, metachronous metastatic disease and long survival were linked to BM development.

Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Before, During, and After Radiotherapy for High-Risk Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of capecitabine and oxaliplatin before, during, and after radiotherapy for high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with rectum cancer T4 or T3 involving the mesorectal fascia was included in a prospective phase 2 trial. Liver or lung metastases were accepted if the surgeons found them resectable. The patients received 6 weeks of capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy (CRT), continued capecitabine and oxaliplatin during radiotherapy, and received 4 weeks of capecitabine and oxaliplatin after CRT. The patients received radiotherapy as intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Total mesorectal excision was planned 8 weeks after CRT. The patients were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before start of treatment, after 6 weeks of chemotherapy, and again just before the operation. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR29 scoring system was used to evaluate adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled between 2009 and 2012. The treatment was well tolerated, with only one death during treatment. Eighty percent of assessable patients experienced response to chemotherapy alone as evaluated by MRI, which increased to 94% after complete oncologic treatment. Forty-nine patients had a total mesorectal excision performed, all with a R0 resection and with a pathologic complete response of 20% for patients with T3 tumor and 7% for patients with T4 tumor. Five patients had metastases at study entry, while 47 patients had locally advanced rectal cancer without metastases. Of these 47 patients, overall survival and progression-free survival at 5 years was 72% and 62%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 60 months. CONCLUSION: This aggressive approach with capecitabine and oxaliplatin before, during, and after radiotherapy for high-risk rectal cancer is safe and feasible; it also has an impressive response rate as measured by MRI and a promising 5-year overall survival.

Incidence and risk factors for capecitabine-induced symptomatic cardiotoxicity: a retrospective study of 452 consecutive patients with metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Case reports of capecitabine cardiotoxicity resemble those seen with intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with chest pain as the predominant manifestation, but few studies of capecitabine cardiotoxicity are available. We aimed to determine the incidence of symptomatic cardiotoxicity from capecitabine in patients with breast cancer and to identify risk factors. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of consecutive women with breast cancer treated with capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 two times per day) from 2002 to 2012 at one institution. RESULTS: 22 of 452 patients (4.9%) (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) had symptoms of cardiotoxicity (chest pain: n=13, dyspnoea: n=9, palpitations: n=2). 11 patients had changes on ECG (atrial fibrillation: n=5, ST deviations: n=3, T-wave abnormalities: n=2 and QTc prolongation: n=1). 2 patients (0.4%) sustained acute myocardial infarction. 1 patient (0.2%) developed cardiac arrest with lethal outcome. 4 of 6 patients (66%) retreated with capecitabine had recurrent symptoms at retreatment. Cardiac comorbidity (p=0.001), hypercholesterolaemia (p=0.005) and current smoking (p=0.023) were risk factors for cardiotoxicity in univariate analyses and remained significant when adjusted for age. Patients with cardiac comorbidity were 5.5 times (95% CI 2.0 to 14.8) more likely to develop cardiotoxicity. In the subgroup of patients with apparently no cardiac comorbidity, the incidence of cardiotoxicity was lower (3.7%) and hypercholesterolaemia (p=0.035) and current smoking (p=0.020) were risk factors of cardiotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of cardiotoxicity from capecitabine resembles that of intravenous 5-FU (≈5%). Cardiac comorbidity, hypercholesterolaemia and current smoking were associated with development of cardiotoxicity.

A systematic review of salvage therapy to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan +/- targeted therapy.

UNLABELLED: Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil in combination with or without targeted therapies are well-documented treatment options for first- and second-line treatments of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are much less data on the beneficial effect on systemic therapy in the third-line setting. We therefore performed a systematic review of the current literature on third or later lines of treatment to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after the use of approved drugs or combinations. METHODS: A computer-based literature search was carried out using Pubmed and data reported at international meetings. Original studies reporting ≥15 patients who had previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan were included. Furthermore, patients with KRAS wild type tumours should had received EGFR-directed therapy. RESULTS: Conventional chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, mitomycin C, and gemcitabine have limited or no activity. Retreatment with oxaliplatin might be an option in selected patients. In addition, rechallenge with EGFR-directed therapy might be a valuable strategy. Data also suggest that angiogenetic drugs may postpone further progression and prolong survival. Lately, regorafinib has been approved. In conclusion, our current knowledge is based on many retrospective studies, some phase II studies and very few randomized clinical trials. Further prospective phase III trials comparing an investigational drug or combination with best supportive care in third- or later lines of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer are highly warranted. Identification of predictive biomarkers and improvement of our understanding of molecular mechanisms is crucial.

Capecitabine and bevacizumab in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: No standard treatment exists for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have progressed after treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, irinotecan and an anti-EGFR antibody. The efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and capecitabine in heavily pre-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, who had been exposed to 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan in the first- and second line setting and mainly with irinotecan and cetuximab as third line treatment, were treated with capecitabine and bevacizumab. Four patients had received bevacizumab earlier. RESULTS: From January 2009 to August 2010 34 patients started treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab. The combination was well tolerated. Progression free survival was 5.4 months and median overall survival was 12.2 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine and bevacizumab was safe with an acceptable toxicity profile and induced a significant rate of disease control in heavily pre-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Bevacizumab in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan after failure of cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of concurrent administration of irinotecan with the two monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and bevacizumab as fourth line therapy in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had progressed on therapy with 5-FU, oxaliplatin and irinotecan in the first and second line setting and on the combination of irinotecan and cetuximab in third line setting independent of their KRAS mutation status, were treated with irinotecan and cetuximab combined with bevacizumab in a dosage of 5 mg/kg. All drugs were administered every second week. RESULTS: From January 2007 to November 2008 27 patients were treated with cetuximab, irinotecan and bevacizumab. The triple-combination was well tolerated. Progression free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months and median overall survival (mOS) was 12.0 months. Two patients without KRAS mutation (7%) obtained a partial response and 17 (63%) had stable disease for at least two months. A retrospective KRAS mutation analysis revealed that there was a trend toward longer PFS and mOS in patients without KRAS mutations compared to patients with KRAS mutations with a PFS of 8.9 vs. 5.1 months and a mOS of 12.7 vs. 9.0 months. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab is safe to add to irinotecan and cetuximab with a toxicity profile that seems to be similar to what would be expected from the agents alone. The results indicate that adding bevacizumab to irinotecan and cetuximab in a fourth line setting may induce a high rate of disease control in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.