Recommendations for the optimal management of peritoneal metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: a TTD and GECOP-SEOQ expert consensus statement

Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur when cancer cells spread inside the abdominal cavity and entail an advanced stage of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prognosis, which is poor, correlates highly with tumour burden, as measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in specialized centres should be offered especially to patients with a low to moderate PCI when complete resection is expected. The presence of resectable metastatic disease in other organs is not a contraindication in well-selected patients. Although several retrospective and small prospective studies have suggested a survival benefit of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to CRS, the recently published phase III studies PRODIGE-7 in CRC patients with PM, and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP in resected CRC with high-risk of PM, failed to show any survival advantage of this strategy using oxaliplatin in a 30-min perfusion. Final results from ongoing randomized phase III trials testing CRS plus HIPEC based on mitomycin C (MMC) are awaited with interest. In this article, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD) and the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP), which is part of the Spanish Society of Surgical Oncology (SEOQ), reviewed the role of HIPEC plus CRS in CRC patients with PM. As a result, a series of recommendations to optimize the management of these patients is proposed (AU)

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022)

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022) (AU)

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (2022).

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Spain. Metastatic disease is present in 15-30% of patients at diagnosis and up to 20-50% of those with initially localized disease eventually develop metastases. Recent scientific knowledge acknowledges that this is a clinically and biologically heterogeneous disease. As treatment options increase, prognosis for individuals with metastatic disease has steadily improved over recent decades. Disease management should be discussed among experienced, multidisciplinary teams to select the most appropriate systemic treatment (chemotherapy and targeted agents) and to integrate surgical or ablative procedures, when indicated. Clinical presentation, tumor sidedness, molecular profile, disease extension, comorbidities, and patient preferences are key factors when designing a customized treatment plan. These guidelines seek to provide succinct recommendations for managing metastatic CRC.

Recommendations for the optimal management of peritoneal metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: a TTD and GECOP-SEOQ expert consensus statement.

Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur when cancer cells spread inside the abdominal cavity and entail an advanced stage of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prognosis, which is poor, correlates highly with tumour burden, as measured by the peritoneal cancer index (PCI). Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in specialized centres should be offered especially to patients with a low to moderate PCI when complete resection is expected. The presence of resectable metastatic disease in other organs is not a contraindication in well-selected patients. Although several retrospective and small prospective studies have suggested a survival benefit of adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to CRS, the recently published phase III studies PRODIGE-7 in CRC patients with PM, and COLOPEC and PROPHYLOCHIP in resected CRC with high-risk of PM, failed to show any survival advantage of this strategy using oxaliplatin in a 30-min perfusion. Final results from ongoing randomized phase III trials testing CRS plus HIPEC based on mitomycin C (MMC) are awaited with interest. In this article, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD) and the Spanish Group of Peritoneal Oncologic Surgery (GECOP), which is part of the Spanish Society of Surgical Oncology (SEOQ), reviewed the role of HIPEC plus CRS in CRC patients with PM. As a result, a series of recommendations to optimize the management of these patients is proposed.

A randomised phase 2 study comparing different dose approaches of induction treatment of regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients (REARRANGE trial).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the safety of two regorafenib dose-escalation approaches in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC and progression during or within 3 months following their last standard chemotherapy regimen were randomised to receive the approved dose of regorafenib of 160 mg QD (arm A) or 120 mg QD (arm B) administered as 3 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week off, or 160 mg QD 1 week on/1 week off (arm C). The primary end-point was the percentage of patients with G3/G4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in each arm. RESULTS: There were 299 patients randomly assigned to arm A (n = 101), arm B (n = 99), or arm C (n = 99); 297 initiated treatments (arm A n = 100, arm B n = 98, arm C n = 99: population for safety analyses). G3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 60%, 55%, and 54% of patients in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The most common G3/4 AEs were hypertension (19, 12, and 20 patients), fatigue (20, 14, and 15 patients), hypokalemia (11, 7, and 10 patients), and hand-foot skin reaction (8, 7, and 3 patients). Median overall survival was 7.4 (IQR 4.0-13.7) months in arm A, 8.6 (IQR 3.8-13.4) in arm B, and 7.1 (IQR 4.4-12.4) in arm C. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative regorafenib dosing schedules were feasible and safe in patients with mCRC who had been previously treated with standard therapy. There was a higher numerical improvement on the most clinically relevant AEs in the intermittent dosing arm, particularly during the relevant first two cycles. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02835924.

Topical heparin as an effective and safe treatment for patients with capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: results of a phase IIA trial supported by proteomic profiling of skin biopsies.

Background: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common adverse reaction associated with capecitabine chemotherapy that significantly affects the quality of life of patients. This study evaluates the safety and effectiveness of a topical heparin (TH) treatment on the clinical manifestations and anatomopathological alterations of capecitabine-induced HFS. In addition, we performed proteome profiling of skin biopsies obtained from patients with HFS at baseline and after heparin treatment. Methods: Patients with grade ⩽ 2 HFS associated with capecitabine were included in this study. The primary end point was the effectiveness of TH in reducing HFS of any grade. Clinical improvement was evaluated by clinicians, and an improvement was perceived by patients who performed a weekly visual analog scale questionnaire. Secondary end points included a comparative histological analysis and protein expression in skin biopsies at baseline and after 3 weeks of HT treatment. Proteomic profiling was carried out using quantitative isobaric labelling and subsequently validated by a T-array. Results: Twenty-one patients were included in the study. The median TH treatment time was 7.6 weeks (range = 3.6-41.6 weeks), and the median response time was 3.01 weeks (95% CI = 2.15-3.97). At the end of treatment, 19 of 21 patients (90.48%) responded to treatment with a decrease in one or more grades of HFS. None of the patients experienced adverse effects related to TH usage, nor did they suspend chemotherapy treatment. The main findings observed in skin biopsies after treatment were a decrease in hyperkeratosis and lymphocytic infiltrates. The proteomic analysis showed altered expression of 34 proteins that were mainly related to wound healing, cell growth, and the immune response. Conclusion: Based on our results, topical heparin is an effective and safe treatment for clinical manifestations of HFS, probably due to the restauration of skin homeostasis after heparin treatment, as supported by our proteomics-derived data. Trial registration: EudraCT 2009-018171-13.

Effect of aflibercept plus FOLFIRI and potential efficacy biomarkers in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the POLAF trial.

BACKGROUND: Aflibercept is an antiangiogenic drug against metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) combined with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI); however, no antiangiogenic biomarker has yet been validated. We assessed aflibercept plus FOLFIRI, investigating the biomarker role of baseline vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE). METHODS: Phase II trial in oxaliplatin-treated mCRC patients who received aflibercept plus FOLFIRI. The reported 135 ng/mL ACE cut-off was used and ROC analysis was performed to assess the optimal VEGF-A cut-off for progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were followed for a median of 12 (6-17) months. The 1941 pg/mL VEGF-A was an optimal cut-off, with a longer median PFS when VEGF-A was <1941 versus ≥1941 pg/mL (9 versus 4 months). Patients with VEGF-A < 1941 pg/mL showed longer median OS (19 versus 8 months), TTP (9 versus 4 months) and TTF (8 versus 4 months), along with higher ORR (26% versus 9%) and DCR (81% versus 55%). No differences were identified according to ACE levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports aflibercept plus FOLFIRI benefits, suggesting VEGF-A as a potential biomarker to predict better outcomes.

First-Line Biological Agents Plus Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Pooled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologicals, in combination with chemotherapy, are recommended as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, evidence guiding the appropriate management of older patients with mCRC is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes in older versus younger patients with mCRC who received first-line biological therapy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used pooled data from five trials undertaken by the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours. All were studies of adults with advanced CRC who received first-line treatment with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, cetuximab or panitumumab, stratified by age (≥ 65 vs. < 65 years). Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: In total, 999 patients from five studies were included in the analysis: 480 (48%) were aged ≥ 65 years, and 519 (52%) were aged < 65 years. Median PFS did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥ 65 and < 65 years (9.9 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.17). Median OS was significantly shorter in older than in younger patients (21.3 vs. 25.0 months; HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41). There was no significant difference between older and younger patients in ORR (59 vs. 62%). Patients aged ≥ 65 years experienced significantly more treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (61.67%) than did patients aged < 65 years (45.86%). CONCLUSIONS: Biologicals plus chemotherapy is an effective first-line treatment option for selected patients aged ≥ 65 years with mCRC and has a manageable safety profile and efficacy comparable to that observed in younger patients.

Phase II randomized trial of capecitabine with bevacizumab and external beam radiation therapy as preoperative treatment for patients with resectable locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma: long term results.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine is considered as a standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. The "Tratamiento de Tumores Digestivos" group (TTD) previously reported in a randomized Ph II study that the addition of Bevacizumab to capecitabine-RT conferred no differences in the pre-defined efficacy endpoint (pathological complete response). We present the follow-up results of progression-free survival, distant relapse-free survival, and overall survival data at 3 and 5 years. METHODS: Patients (pts) were randomized to receive 5 weeks of radiotherapy (45 Gy/25 fractions) with concurrent Capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily, 5 days per week with (arm A) or without (arm b) bevacizumab (5 mg/kg once every 2 weeks). RESULTS: In our study, the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine and radiotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting shows no differences in pathological complete response (15.9% vs 10.9%), distant relapse-free survival (81.0 vs 80.4 and 76.2% vs 78.2% at 3 and 5 years respectively), disease-free survival (75% vs 71.7 and 68.1% vs 69.57% at 3 and 5 years respectively) nor overall survival at 5-years of follow-up (81.8% vs 86.9%). CONCLUSIONS: the addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine plus radiotherapy does not confer statistically significant advantages neither in distant relapse-free survival nor in disease-free survival nor in Overall Survival in the short or long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2009-010192-24 . Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01043484 .

Current Options for Third-line and Beyond Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Spanish TTD Group Expert Opinion.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health problem: it is the third most common cancer in men (746,000 new cases/year) and the second in women (614,000 new cases/year), representing the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. The survival of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has increased prominently in recent years, reaching a median of 25 to 30 months. A growing number of patients with mCRC are candidates to receive a treatment in third line or beyond, although the optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown. In this situation of refractoriness, there are several alternatives: (1) To administer sequentially the 2 oral drugs approved in this indication: trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, which have shown a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival with a different toxicity profile. (2) To administer cetuximab or panitumumab in treatment-naive patients with RAS wild type, which is increasingly rare because these drugs are usually indicated in first- or second-line. (3) To reuse drugs already administered that were discontinued owing to toxicity or progression (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, antiangiogenics, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor [if RAS wild-type]). High-quality evidence is limited, but this strategy is often used in routine clinical practice in the absence of alternative therapies especially in patients with good performance status. (4) To use specific treatments for very selected populations, such as trastuzumab/lapatinib in mCRC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, immunotherapy in microsatellite instability, intrahepatic therapies in limited disease or primarily located in the liver, although the main recommendation is to include patients in clinical trials.

Tumour location and efficacy of first-line EGFR inhibitors in KRAS/RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: retrospective analyses of two phase II randomised Spanish TTD trials.

Purpose: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a group of distinct diseases, with clinical and molecular differences between right-sided and left-sided tumours driving varying prognosis. Methods: Patients with KRAS/RAS-wild type (wt) mCRC treated in first line with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFR-Is) (cetuximab or panitumumab) plus oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based chemotherapy from two phase II randomised trials conducted by the Spanish Cooperative for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours group were included in this retrospective study. The main objective was to analyse the prognostic effect of primary tumour location on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Patients with KRAS-wt right-sided tumours (n=52) had significantly lower efficacy as compared with patients with KRAS-wt left-sided tumours (n=209); confirmed ORR (25% vs 47%, respectively; OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8, p=0.004); and shorter median PFS (7.2 vs 9.9 months; HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9, p=0.0157) and OS (13.6 vs 27.7 months; HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7, p<0.0001). Similar results were observed in the RAS-wt populations. The further classification of left-sided tumours as colon or rectum delivered similar survival outcomes, as well as a tendency to diminished ORR in patients with rectum tumours. Conclusion: We observed significantly improved efficacy outcomes in patients with KRAS/RAS-wt mCRC treated with first-line EGFR-I plus chemotherapy in left-sided primary tumours as compared with right-sided primary tumours. Trial registration numbers: NCT01161316 and NCT00885885.

A phase 2 study of panitumumab with irinotecan as salvage therapy in chemorefractory KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Targeted agents are standard treatment for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the first- and second-line settings. This phase 2 study determined the benefit of targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory patients. METHODS: KRAS exon-2 wild-type patients failing prior irinotecan received panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and irinotecan (180 mg/m²) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). KRAS exon-2 status was evaluated centrally, along with NRAS, BRAF mutations, epiregulin, amphiregulin, PTEN and EGFR copy number status, and correlated with efficacy. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated. Among the 46 wild-type RAS patients, the ORR was 15.2% (seven partial responses), with median PFS of 3.8 months (95% CI 2.7-4.3) and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 6.7-15.9). Wild-type BRAF patients showed a 13.0% response rate. No significant correlations between response and baseline biomarker expression were identified. Common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea and rash (18.0% each), hypomagnesaemia and asthenia (8.2% each). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of panitumumab to irinotecan as salvage therapy is feasible but has limited activity in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. No biomarkers predictive of response were identified.

Clinical utility of ABCB1 genotyping for preventing toxicity in treatment with irinotecan.

Preventing severe irinotecan-induced adverse reactions would allow us to offer better treatment and improve patients' quality of life. Transporters, metabolizing enzymes, and genes involved in the folate pathway have been associated with irinotecan-induced toxicity. We analyzed 12 polymorphisms in UGT1A1, ABCB1, ABCG2, ABCC4, ABCC5, and MTHFR in 158 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and studied the association with grade >2 adverse reactions (CTCAE). Among the most frequent ADRs, the SNPs rs1128503, rs2032582, and rs1045642 in ABCB1 and rs1801133 in MTHFR were associated with hematological toxicity and overall toxicity. The SNP rs11568678 in ABCC4 was also associated with overall toxicity. After correction of P values using a false discovery rate, only ABCB1 variants remained statistically significant. Haplotype analysis in ABCB1 showed an 11.3-fold and 4.6-fold increased risk of hematological toxicity (95% CI, 1.459-88.622) and overall toxicity (95% CI, 2.283-9.386), respectively. Consequently, genotyping of the three SNPs in ABCB1 can predict overall toxicity and hematological toxicity with a diagnostic odds ratio of 4.40 and 9.94, respectively. Genotyping of ABCB1 variants can help to prevent severe adverse reactions to irinotecan-based treatments in colorectal cancer.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Axitinib as Maintenance Therapy After First-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with axitinib versus placebo following induction therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blinded, phase II trial, patients with mCRC who had not progressed after 6 to 8 months of first-line chemotherapy were randomized to receive axitinib (5 mg twice a day) (arm A) or placebo (arm B). RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were included: 25 in arm A and 24 in arm B. The median follow-up was 26.07 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.44-31.73 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months was 40.00% (95% CI, 21.28%-58.12%) in the axitinib arm versus 8.33% (95% CI, 1.44%-23.30%) in the placebo arm (P = .0141). The median PFS was statistically significantly longer in the axitinib group than in the placebo group (4.96 vs. 3.16 months; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.86; P = .0116). Median overall survival was also longer in the axitinib arm but did not reach statistical significance (27.61 vs. 19.99 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.31-1.48; P = .3279). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities were experienced by 7 patients (28%) in cohort A and 1 patient (4%) in cohort B (P = .0488). The most frequent grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities were hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia. There were no toxic deaths. The study was prematurely closed because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, maintenance treatment with axitinib monotherapy showed a significant increase in PFS and a good safety profile. Axitinib should be further explored as a possible option for first-line chemotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with mCRC.

A phase II Study Evaluating Combined Neoadjuvant Cetuximab and Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy and Concomitant Cetuximab in Locoregional Oesophageal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy using a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin backbone is widely used to improve surgical outcomes in locoregional oesophageal cancer patients, despite a non-negligible failure rate. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated intensification of this approach to improve patient outcomes by adding cetuximab to induction 5-FU/cisplatin/docetaxel (TPF) and to chemoradiotherapy in a phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2006 and April 2009, 50 patients with stage II-IVa squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction initiated three TPF/cetuximab cycles. Six weeks later, patients with response or stabilisation initiated 6 weeks of cisplatin/cetuximab/radiotherapy, followed by surgery. The primary objective was the clinical complete response (cCR) rate after induction therapy plus chemoradiotherapy in intent-to-treat patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were evaluable after chemoradiotherapy, 84% of whom showed disease control. Six patients (12%) achieved a cCR, with a 54% overall response rate. Twenty-seven patients underwent surgery, 11 of whom (22%; nine SCC, two adenocarcinoma) had a pathological CR (41%). Fifteen patients were alive after a median follow-up of 23.2 months. Median progression-free survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-22.8). Median overall survival was 23.4 months (95% CI 12.2-36.6) and was significantly longer among the 22 patients with complete resection than in the five patients without (42.1 vs. 24.9 months; p = 0.02, hazard ratio: 3.6, 95% CI 1.1-11.6). The toxicity profile was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant cetuximab/TPF followed by chemoradiotherapy in locoregional oesophageal carcinoma patients is feasible and offers a modest response rate in this trial. The results of combining trimodality neoadjuvant treatment with cetuximab are consistent with the literature. Registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00733889).

The subgroups of the phase III RECOURSE trial of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) versus placebo with best supportive care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III RECOURSE trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) extended overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory or intolerant to standard therapies. The present analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in RECOURSE subgroups. METHODS: Primary and key secondary end-points were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model in prespecified subgroups, including geographical subregion (United States of America [USA], European Union [EU], Japan), age (<65 years, ≥65 years) and v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) status (wild type, mutant). Safety and tolerability were reported with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Eight-hundred patients were enrolled: USA, n = 99; EU, n = 403; Japan, n = 266. Patients aged ≥65 years and those with mutant KRAS tumours comprised 44% and 51% of all patients in the subregions, respectively. Final OS analysis (including 89% of events, compared with 72% in the initial analysis) confirmed the survival benefit associated with trifluridine/tipiracil, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.81; P = 0.0001). Median OS in the three regions was 6.5-7.8 months in the trifluridine/tipiracil arm and 4.3-6.7 months in the placebo arm (USA: HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.94; P = 0.0277; EU: HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.48-0.80; P = 0.0002; Japan: HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-1.00; P = 0.0470). Median PFS was 2.0-2.8 months for trifluridine/tipiracil and 1.7-1.8 months for placebo; HRs favoured trifluridine/tipiracil in all regions. Similar clinical benefits of trifluridine/tipiracil were observed in elderly patients and in those with mutant KRAS tumours. There were no marked differences among subregions in terms of safety and tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: Trifluridine/tipiracil was effective in all subgroups, regardless of age, geographical origin or KRAS status. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01607957.

Correction to: A Phase II Study Evaluating Combined Neoadjuvant Cetuximab and Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy and Concomitant Cetuximab in Locoregional Oesophageal Cancer Patients.

Errors were subsequently identified in the article and the following corrections should be noted.

Use of exome sequencing to determine the full profile of genetic variants in the fluoropyrimidine pathway in colorectal cancer patients affected by severe toxicity.

AIM: To identify genetic variants associated with capecitabine toxicity in fluoropyrimidine pathway genes using exome sequencing. PATIENTS & METHODS: Exomes from eight capecitabine-treated patients with severe adverse reactions (grade >2), among a population of 319, were sequenced (Ion Proton). SNPs in genes classified as potentially damaging (Sorting Intolerant from Tolerant and Polymorphism Phenotyping v2) were tested for association with toxicity in a validation cohort of 319 capecitabine-treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 17 nonsynonymous genetic variants were identified. Of these, five putative damaging SNPs in DPYD, ABCC4 and MTHFR were genotyped in the validation cohort. DPYD rs1801160 was associated with the risk of toxicity (p = 0.029) and MTHFR rs1801133 with delayed administration of chemotherapy due to toxicity (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Exome sequencing revealed two specific biomarkers of the risk of toxicity to capecitabine.

First-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with multiple or unresectable liver metastases: A randomised, phase II trial (PLANET-TTD).

BACKGROUND: In first-line wild-type (WT)-Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab (Pmab) improves outcomes when added to FOLFOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan]. However no trial has directly compared these combinations. METHODS: Multicentre, open-label study in untreated patients ≥ 18 years with (WT)-KRAS mCRC and multiple or unresectable liver-limited disease (LLD) randomised to either Pmab-FOLFOX4 or Pmab-FOLFIRI. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points included liver metastases resection rate (R0 + R1), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events and perioperative safety. Exploratory end-points were: response by RAS status, early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) in WT-RAS patients. RESULTS: Data on 77 patients were analysed (38 Pmab-FOLFOX4; 39 Pmab-FOLFIRI; WT-RAS: 27/26, respectively). ORR was 74% with Pmab-FOLFOX4 and 67% with Pmab-FOLFIRI (WT-RAS: 78%/73%). Out of the above, 45% and 59% underwent surgical resection, respectively (WT-RAS: 37%/69%). The R0-R1 resection rate was 34%/46% (WT-RAS:26%/54%). Median PFS was 13/14 months (hazard ratio [HR] Pmab-FOLFIRI versus Pmab-FOLFOX4: 0.9; 95% confidence interval: [0.6-1.5]; WT-RAS:13/15; HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.3]). Median OS was 37/41 months (HR:1.0 [0.6-1.8]; WT-RAS: 39/49; HR:0.9 [0.4-1.9]). In WT-RAS patients with confirmed response, median DpR was 71%/66%, and 65%/77% of patients showed ETS ≥ 30%/ ≥ 20% at week 8, without significant differences between arms; these patients had longer median PFS and OS and higher resectability rates. Surgery was associated with longer survival. Perioperative and overall safety were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 neutropenia (40%/10%; p = 0.003) and neuropathy (13%/0%; p = 0.025) in the Pmab-FOLFOX4 arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with WT-KRAS mCRC and LLD, both first-line Pmab-FOLFOX4 and Pmab-FOLFIRI resulted in high ORR and ETS, allowing potentially curative resection. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two regimens. (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00885885).